CAR_Public/190830.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 174

                            Headlines

1 UP NUTRITION: Naseri Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
22ND CENTURY GROUP: Fitch Drops Securities Class Suit
ADVANCE AUTO: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit in Delaware Pending
ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Kim Sues Over FDCPA Violation
AETNA LIFE: Hendricks Sues over Insurance Coverage for L-ADR

AG&CG LLC: Faces Reid's ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
AKORN INC: Settlement in Securities Litigation Underway
AL'S FORMAL: Faces Reid's ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
ALJ REGIONAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Marshall Class Suit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Can't Compel Arbitration in Ferro FDCPA Suit

ARK RESTAURANTS: Faces Putative Class Suit over Labor Law Breaches
BARCLAYS BANK: Potter Sues Over FCRA Violation
BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Suit
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Valeant Pharmaceuticals Suit Denied
BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada

BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
BERGEN COUNTY: Mabille Sues Over Racial Discrimination
BURKE FOUNDATION: T.S. Sues Over Unpaid Manual Labor
CALDREA COMPANY: Faces Reid Suit in Southern District of New York
CAPITAL ONE: Most Wanted Motorsports Sues Over Data Breach

CAVALRY SPV I: Hutchison Sues Over FDCPA Violation
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Vectren Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Removes Franco et al. Suit to C.D. California
CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway
CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway

CENTURYLINK INC: $19MM Settlement of Consumer Class Suits Underway
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cyber-Attack Related Class Suits Consolidated
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit over GoTo Services Spinoff
CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Kennedy FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Ongoing

COMSCORE INC: Privacy Class Action Litigation Remains Pending
CORRECT CARE: Class of Inmates with HCV in Woodcock Suit Certified
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses E. Morrow's Suit
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses T. Patterson's Suit
DELANCEY'S LUDLOW: Epifanio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

DISH DBS: 4th Circuit Affirms $61MM Judgment for Krakauer Class
DISH DBS: Officers & Firefighters Retirement Fund Suit Underway
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces Nazario Suit in District of New Jersey
EAST COAST: Xu Seeks OT Pay for Tourism Operations Specialist
EDRIVING LLC: Glynn Sues over BIPA Violations

EGALET CORP: Appeal in Class Suit Proceeds vs. Officer Defendants
EPIC GAMES: Heidbreder Sues over Fortnite User Data Theft
FBCS INC: Bicknell Sues over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
FLINT, MI: Lawyers Seek Appointment of Settlement Counsel
FLORIDA: Dept. of Children and Families Face Harrell et al. Suit

FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks Initial Approval of Georgia Case Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Napier Sues Over False Fuel Economy Ratings
FOREIGN AUTO IMPORT: Santos Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
GEORGIA: Community Supervision Department Faces ADA Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: California Product Liability Class Suit Underway

GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Meds Price-Rigging Related Suit Ongoing
GMS CONCRETE: Stanley et al Seek Overtime Pay for Laborers
GOHEALTH LLC: Dawson Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay
GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Ongoing in 2010 Employees Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending

GPB CAPITAL: Girard Sharp, Gibbs Law File Securities Suit
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: IPO-Related Class Suit Underway
GURTLER CHEMICALS: Kirby Sues Over BIPA Violaton
HELIX ENERGY: Dismissal of Discrimination Suit Partly Recommended
HI-TECH PROPERTY: Taylor Files Class Suit in Virginia

HOME PROPERTIES: 3d Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Jarzyna
INOGEN INC: Fabbri and Friedland Suits Consolidated
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Zhang Investor Law Files Securities Class Suit
IRS: Failed to Act on FOIA Request, Southern Poverty Says
IZEA WORLDWIDE: Approval Hearing for Perez Accord Set for Sept. 23

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oklahoma Wins $572MM Judgment in Opioid Trial
JUST ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit
JUUL LABS: Faces Potential Class Action Over E-Cigarettes
K12 INC: Court Grants Final Settlement Approval
KEANE GROUP: Bushansky Balks at Merger Deal with C&J Energy

KFORCE INC: Smith Sues over Credit Background Check
KIMBALL TIREY: Court Dismisses Scott from FDCA Suit With Prejudice
LINKWELL CORP: Nov. 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LOS ANGELES, CA: Nerddeer et al. Seek Minimum Wages & Overtime
LYFT INC: Hit With Class Suit Over Driver Employment Status

MACY'S WEST: Faces Brito ADA Suit in District of Colorado
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Minor Leaguers Move Forward With Class Suit
MASONITE INT'L: Bid to Dismiss E.D. Va. Litigation Underway
MDL 2262: NCUA's Bid for Exclusion from OTC Class Deals Denied
MDL 2904: DeMarco Suit v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated

MDL 2904: Woods Suit v. Quest, et al over Data Breach Consolidated
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT: Class Action Over Water Surcharges
MICHIGAN: Court Party Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Hill Suit
MISSOURI: Atty. General Can't Intervene as Defendant in Dalton Suit
MOMENTA PHARMA: Hospital Authority Class Action Ongoing

MOMENTA PHARMA: M923-Related Proceedings Ongoing
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: New GM Faces "Several Hundreds" of PI Lawsuits
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: New GM Faces 100 Economic-Related Loss Suits
MUSICAL.LY: Gathers Kids Info Without Parent's Consent, Suit Says
MYRIAD GENETICS: Unit Still Faces Potential Class Suit in Illinois

NATERA INC: Seeks to Dismiss TCPA Class Action in N.D. California
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss TV Ads Antitrust Suit Underway
OCEAN SPRAY: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Hilsley Suit
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Appeal in Carvelli Class Suit Still Pending
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court to Okay Settlement in McWhorter Case

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court to Re-Visit Order Granting TCPA Settlement
PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Danker Class Suit Pending
PARKING REIT: Magowski and Barene Stockholders Lawsuits Underway
PARKING REIT: SIPDA Named as Lead Plaintiff in Nevada Suit
PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Class Suit Remains Pending

PICK RESEARCH: Retina Sues over Unsolicited Junk Faxes
PLANTRONICS INC: Parties in Shin Suit Seek Initial Okay of Accord
POPULAR INC: 2 Harassment Class Suits in New York Underway
POPULAR INC: Appeal in Camacho Suit Underway
POPULAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Reconsideration in Maura

POPULAR INC: Still Faces Diaz Insurance Commission-Related Suit
POPULAR INC: Unit Still Faces Torres Class Action in Puerto Rico
PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing vs. LG&E
PPL CORP: Talen Montana Retirement Plan Suit Ongoing
PRA GROUP: North Carolina State Court Denies Arbitration Bid

PRA GROUP: Still Defends MDL in S.D. Calif. over TCPA Matters
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sept. 9 Hearing on Motions in Securities Suit
QUANTUM CORPORATION: $8.15MM Settlement Reached in Lazan Suit
QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Faces Class Suit over FLSA Violations
RAWLINGS SPORTING: Court Enters Protective Order in Sotelo Suit

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Acceptance Now Still Defends Russell Suit
REPSOL ENERGY: Brady Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
REWALK ROBOTICS: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Underway
ROCKWELL MEDICAL: $3.7MM Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
ROYAL SEAS: Denied Leave to File Amended Answer in McCurley

S.B.C. NORTHWEST: Ware Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Bonds Suit Pending
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Puerto Rico Class Suit Underway
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Court Approves Settlement in Parmelee Lawsuit
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Discovery in Deka Securities Suit Still Stayed

SECURITY BENEFIT: Court Dismisses SAC in Ogles RICO Suit
SERVICESOURCE INT' L: Settlement Amounts to be Paid in Phases
SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Enters Protective Order in Arreola Labor Suit
SHUTTERFLY INC: Class Action Waiver in Taylor Suit Not Enforceable
SHUTTERFLY INC: Davis Class Suit Against Lifetouch Unit Ongoing

SHUTTERFLY INC: Suits Filed Challenging Photo Holdings Merger
SIENTRA INC: MOU Reached in Hartsock Class Action
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Carman Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
SIGNET JEWELERS: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
SIRIUS XM: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Andrews Suit

SKECHERS USA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Ongoing
SKECHERS USA: Class Cert. Hearing in Wilk Suit Set for Nov. 4
SKECHERS USA: Hearing on Bid to Compel Arbitration Set for Oct. 22
SKECHERS USA: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Suit Ongoing
SPIN THE PLANET: Ost Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts

STONEMOR PARTNERS: Bid for 3rd Cir. Rehearing in Anderson Pending
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Suit
SWITCH INC: Court Narrows Claims in M. Cai Securities Fraud Suit
SWITCH INC: Federal Court Narrows Scope in Cai Class Action
SYMANTEC CORP: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to Amend Claims in Class Suit

SYNACOR INC: Bid to Drop New York Securities Suit Still Pending
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Consolidated Class Suit in Ohio Underway
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Bid to Nix Arbitrage Event-Driven Suit Still Ongoing
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Still Faces Consolidated TV Ad Rates Antitrust Suit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Mediation in Blue Cross Antitrust Suit Resumes

TRUECAR INC: $28.25MM Settlement Reached in Milbeck Class Suit
TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Calif. Consumer Class Suit Still Pending
UGI CORP: AmeriGas Partners Faces Class Suits Related to Merger
UGI CORP: Suits Over Underfilled Propane Cylinders Ongoing
UNITED STATES: Class Suit Targets ICE Detention Centers

UNITED STATES: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Ackerman Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Allows Immigration Class Action to Proceed
US XPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in California Wage & Hour Class Suit
US XPRESS: Independent Contractor Class Suit in Tennessee Ongoing
US XPRESS: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Named in Tennessee Suits

US XPRESS: TCPA Class Suit Against Unit Dismissed
VBI VACCINES: Class Status Request in Israel Suit Still Suspended
VECTOR GROUP: 62 Claims Still Pending in Engle Progeny Cases
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Incurs $3.7MM in Tobacco-Related Lawsuits
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Reaches Tentative Pact in Tobacco Litigation

VECTOR GROUP: Parsons Personal Injury Class Lawsuit Still Stayed
VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Lawsuit Remains Stayed
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Reiser Sues Over FDCPA Violation
VILLA DEL RIO: Illegally Rounds Off Workers' Time, Harris Claims
VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Manning Suit

VIRTU FINANCIAL: ProShares Trust II Securities Litigation Underway
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Still Defends Retirement Fund's Suit in Delaware
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Remains Pending
WESTERN RANGE: 10th Cir. Partly Affirms Llacua Suit Dismissal
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Shanklin

WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid Pending vs Little
YELP INC: Securities Class Action Still Ongoing in California
YONKERS BREWING: Website not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Says
YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Lewis Class Action Still Pending
ZION OIL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Ongoing


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $27MM Aearo-Related Costs at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $935MM for Respirator Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,660 Claimants at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $576MM Reserve at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Tosses Claims Against Union Carbide

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Fines Asbestos Firm for GM Plant Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talc Educator Never Saw Asbestos Reports
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kodak Looks to Ch. 11 to Guard vs Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,279 Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Nets $98MM in Injury Coverage Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Zurn Had 6,000 Pending Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowlands Sue Centex in La. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: T. Dexheimer Files Asbestos Exposure Suit in Del.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Couple Sues CBS et al. over Lung Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tomball Couple Seeks $1-Mil.+ from 3M, Others
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 179 PI Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at June 30


                            *********

1 UP NUTRITION: Naseri Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
MOKHTAR NASERI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 1 UP NUTRITION LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04707 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 15, 2019) is an action brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all consumers in the United
States who have received unsolicited and unconsented-to commercial
text messages to their mobile phones from Defendant in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Prior to receiving text messages to Defendant, Plaintiff NASERI
attempted to make a purchase from Defendant's website. After adding
his item(s) to his cart and proceeding to checkout, he came upon a
page that required him to put his basic information before he could
continue to the shipping page. His phone number was part of the
information that was required of him. Plaintiff NASERI provided his
phone number, and right below his number was a checkbox where
Plaintiff was given the option to opt in to getting 20% off of his
next order by signing up to Defendant's "VIP text club". Plaintiff
NASERI did not check the box to join the VIP club nor gave consent
to receive automated text messages at any other point in the
purchasing process. Even though Plaintiff NASERI did no consent to
such messages or even complete his purchase with Defendant, on
August 3, 2019, Plaintiff NASERI started receiving texts from
Defendant promoting its products and encouraging him to make a
purchase.

Plaintiff NASERI continued to receive text including two the
following day on Sunday August 4, 2019 and one on Monday August 5,
2019. The impersonal nature of the messages sent to Plaintiff
NASERI from a short code number shows that 1 UP uses an auto
dialer/texter to send its messages. Short code numbers are widely
used in automated services. Defendant sent similar unsolicited
marketing texts using an automated telephone texting system to
other similarly situated persons, who likewise never consented to
receiving them. The text messages sent to Plaintiff NASERI were
unwanted, annoying, and a nuisance. Plaintiff NASERI would often
expect important messages, updates, and had to open his phone to
Defendant's invasive messages instead, says the complaint.

Plaintiff NASERI resides in Queens County.

1 UP NUTRITION LLC, is a sports nutrition brand with a principle
address and address for service of process located at 8220 Commerce
Way, Miami Lakes, FL 33016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


22ND CENTURY GROUP: Fitch Drops Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Ian Fitch has
voluntarily dropped out of a class action suit but the motion to
designate Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson
as lead plaintiffs remains pending.

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County
Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Ian
Finch, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T.
Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19-cv-00553.

The Complaint filing alleges that the Plaintiff Mr. Fitch purchased
shares of the Company's common stock. Mr. Fitch sues individually
and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who
acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and
October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual
Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly
contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are
liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney’s fees and costs.

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel in the Fitch litigation
filed a motion in both actions: (1) proposing Joseph Noto, Garden
State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson for Mr. Fitch as purportedly
representative plaintiffs, (2) moving to consolidate the Fitch
litigation with the Bull litigation, and (3) seeking to be
appointed as lead counsel in the consolidated action.

Plaintiffs' counsel in the  Matthew Bull, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group,
Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No.
1:19-cv-00409 litigation filed and then withdrew a comparable
motion seeking to consolidate the cases and be appointed as lead
counsel.

On May 28, 2019, plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily dismissed
that action. The motion to designate Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire
Corp, and Stephens Johnson as lead plaintiffs remains pending.

22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous,
meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs.
Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims."

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.


ADVANCE AUTO: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit in Delaware Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 13, 2019, that a motion to dismiss a putative class action is
pending before the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court, District of
Delaware.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being,
business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class
Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company said, "The case is still in its early stages, with a
motion to dismiss pending before the court.  We strongly dispute
the allegations of the complaint and intend to defend the case
vigorously."

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,
accessories, batteries, and maintenance items for domestic and
imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy
duty trucks. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. was founded in 1929 and is
based in Raleigh, North Carolina.


ADVANCED CALL CENTER: Kim Sues Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Young Ae Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04672-JS-GRB (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019)
seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter ("the Letter") dated August 15, 2018. The
Letter was the initial written communication Plaintiff received
from Defendant concerning the alleged Debt. Plaintiff has the
interest and right to receive a clear, accurate and unambiguous
validation notice, which allows a consumer to confirm that he or
she owes the debt sought to be collected by the debt collector. As
set forth herein, Defendant deprived Plaintiff of this right. The
Letter fails to instruct the consumer to which of the multiple
addresses provided written disputes must be sent. As a result of
the foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer would likely be
confused as to which of the multiple addresses she should send her
written dispute.

Without clear direction as to where to mail her written dispute,
the least sophisticated consumer would likely not dispute the debt
at all. As a result of the foregoing, the Letter would likely
discourage the least sophisticated consumer from exercising her
right to dispute the debt. The Letter fails to instruct the
consumer to which of the multiple addresses provided requests for
the name of the original creditor must be sent. As a result of the
foregoing, the least sophisticated consumer would likely be
confused as to which of the multiple addresses she should send her
request for the name of the original creditor. The Defendant
violated the FDCPA as the multiple addresses overshadow the
disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Young Ae Kim is a natural person allegedly obligated to
pay a debt.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


AETNA LIFE: Hendricks Sues over Insurance Coverage for L-ADR
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HENDRICKS, and ANDREW SAGALONGOS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06840 (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 7, 2019) is a class action to address the Defendant's repeated
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
resulting from its systemic practice of denying services for lumbar
artificial disc replacement surgery (L-ADR) on the basis that such
services are "experimental and investigational."

According to the complaint, the Defendant has developed and used a
coverage policy, the Clinical Policy Bulletin "Intervertebral Disc
Prostheses," that it uses when deciding claims for lumbar
artificial disc replacement surgery (L-ADR). That Policy Bulletin
provides that lumbar ADR is experimental and investigational and,
therefore, excluded in all circumstances. The Defendant has
systematically denied all requests for L-ADR as experimental and
investigational under this Clinical Policy Bulletin. Contrary to
the Defendant's position, lumbar ADR surgery has been approved by
The United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for 15 years
and is a safe, effective, and often recommended procedure that has
successfully treated the symptoms of lumbar disc disease.

Aetna Life Insurance Company provides insurance products. The
Company serves customers throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq,
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com


AG&CG LLC: Faces Reid's ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AG&CG LLC. The case
is captioned as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AG&CG LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07363-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Aug 7, 2019). The case
alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

AKORN INC: Settlement in Securities Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement in the data integrity securities lawsuit remains
pending.

On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v.
Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
named as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Officer Rajat Rai,
Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief Accounting Officer
Randall Pollard.

The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to
disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data integrity
at the Company.

The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company disputes these claims.

On May 31, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co.
Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"),
approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel and
amending the case caption to In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity
Securities Litigation (the "Securities Class Action Litigation").

On June 26, 2018, the Court denied a motion to lift the PSLRA stay,
subject to entry of a preservation order.

On September 5, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against the Company, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M.
Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Ronald M. Johnson, Brian Tambi, John
Kapoor, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Steven J. Meyer
and Terry A. Rappuhn.

The amended complaint asserted (i) claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Fraud Claims")
against Defendants Akorn, Rai, Portwood, Silverberg, Weinstein,
Johnson and Tambi; and (ii) claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Proxy Claims") against
defendants Akorn, Rai, Kapoor, Weinstein, Abramowitz, Graves,
Johnson, Meyer, Rappuhn and Tambi.

The amended complaint alleged that, during a class period from
November 3, 2016, to April 20, 2018, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at
Akorn's manufacturing and research and development facilities,
while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading
statements and omissions of material fact concerning the Company's
data integrity at its facilities.

The amended complaint alleged that corrective information was
provided to the market on two separate dates, causing non-insider
shareholders to lose over $1.07 billion and $613 million in value
respectively. The amended complaint sought an award of equitable
relief and damages.

On October 29, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and joint
motion providing for the dismissal of certain claims and
defendants.

On October 30, 2018, the Court granted the parties' joint motion,
dismissing the Proxy Claims without prejudice; dismissing
defendants Kapoor, Abramowitz, Graves, Meyer and Rappuhn without
prejudice; and dismissing Defendant Silverberg with prejudice.

On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Johnny Wickstrom, a purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Wickstrom Action").

The complaint named as defendants the Company, Rai and Portwood.
The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning its
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the
Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at
the Company's facility in Decatur, IL.

The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 8, 2019, the parties in the Securities Class Action
Litigation filed a proposed stipulation which sought, among other
things: (i) leave to file a second amended class action complaint,
which would extend the end date of the alleged class period from
November 3, 2016, through September 28, 2018; (ii) to consolidate
the Wickstrom complaint into the Securities Class Action Litigation
for all purposes; and (iii) to extend the existing discovery
schedule in order to permit time to mediate lead plaintiffs' claims
and to conduct additional discovery related to the expanded class
period.

During a March 27, 2019 conference, the Court found that the
Wickstrom Action was related to the Securities Class Action
Litigation and ordered oral argument for April 22, 2019, on lead
plaintiffs' requests to file a second amended complaint and to
consolidate the Wickstrom complaint.

Following the March 27, 2019 hearing, the Court entered an order
finding the Securities Class Action Litigation and Wickstrom Action
to be related and requesting the reassignment of the Wickstrom
Action. The Court also extended the discovery and pretrial
deadlines.

On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff Vicente Juan, a purported shareholder
of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Juan Action").

The complaint named as defendants the Company, Rai and Portwood.
The complaint alleged that defendants made or caused the Company to
make materially false or misleading statements and/or material
omissions concerning the Company's compliance with FDA regulations
and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company
disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the
Company’s facility in Decatur, IL.

The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Also on April 22, 2019, lead plaintiffs, by and through their
attorneys, filed a second amended complaint against the Company,
Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The second amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The second amended complaint alleges that, during a class period
from November 3, 2016, to January 8, 2019, defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded widespread institutional data integrity
problems at Akorn's manufacturing and research and development
facilities, while making or causing Akorn to make contrary
misleading statements and/or omissions of material fact concerning
the Company's data integrity at its facilities.

The second amended complaint alleges that corrective information
was provided to the market on three separate dates. The second
amended complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages.

On April 23, 2019, the Court entered an order finding the
Securities Class Action Litigation and Juan Action to be related
and requesting reassignment of the Juan Action.

On May 3, 2019, the Company and lead plaintiffs commenced
mediation. On May 9, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating
both the Wickstrom Action and the Juan Action with and into the
Securities Class Action Litigation. The Court also extended the
discovery and pretrial deadlines.

On May 31, 2019, Plaintiffs Twin Master Fund, Ltd., Twin
Opportunities Fund, LP and Twin Securities, Inc., purported
shareholders of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging
violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud (the "Twin Master Fund
Action").

The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood,
Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants
made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading
statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company's
compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages
and expenses.

Following a June 5, 2019 conference, the Court extended the
discovery and pretrial deadlines.

On June 11, 2019, the Court entered an order finding the Securities
Class Action Litigation and Twin Master Fund Action to be related
and requesting reassignment of the Twin Master Fund Action.

On July 5, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a proposed class of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn's common stock between
November 3, 2016 and January 8, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby.

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Manikay Master Fund, LP and Manikay
Merger Fund, LP, purported shareholders of the Company, filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud
(the "Manikay Master Fund Action").

The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood,
Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants
made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading
statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company's
compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages
and expenses.

On July 25, 2019, after extensive arm's-length negotiations, the
parties in the Securities Class Action Litigation reached a
non-binding agreement in principle, memorialized in a signed term
sheet, with respect to the principal terms of a settlement that, if
consummated, would provide for, among other things, the dismissal
of that action and the release of all claims asserted by or on
behalf of the putative class in that action.

Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, the
putative class would release its claims in exchange for a
combination of (i) up to $30 million in insurance proceeds from the
Company's D&O insurance policies (the "D&O Proceeds Payment"), (ii)
the issuance by the Company of approximately 6.5 million shares of
the Company's common stock and any additional shares of Company
common stock that are released as a result of the expiration of out
of the money options through December 31, 2024 and (iii) the
issuance by the Company of contingent value rights ("CVR") with a
five year term, subject to an extension of up to two years under
certain circumstances. Under the terms of the non-binding agreement
in principle, holders of the CVR would be entitled to receive an
annual cash payment from the Company of 33.3% of "Excess EBITDA"
(i.e., earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization (EBITDA) above the amount of EBITDA required to meet a
3.0x net leverage ratio, assuming a $100.0 million minimum cash
cushion, before any such CVR payment is triggered).

To the extent any such annual payments are triggered under the CVR,
they are capped at an aggregate of $12.0 million per year and $60.0
million in the aggregate during the term of the CVR.

Upon certain change of control transactions during the term of the
CVR, if the Company's first lien term loan lenders and holders of
the Company's other debt are repaid in full, the CVR would entitle
the holders thereof to a cash payment in the aggregate amount of
$30.0 million (the "Change of Control Payment").

If the Company is the subject of a voluntary or involuntary
bankruptcy filing during the term of the CVR, the CVR agreement
would provide that holders of the CVR would receive in the
aggregate a $30.0 million unsecured claim (which unsecured claim
will be subordinated to any deficiency claim of the Company's first
lien term loan lenders and holders of the Company's other secured
debt in any such bankruptcy case) (the "Bankruptcy Claim").

The $60.0 million cap on annual payments would not apply to the
Change of Control Payment or the Bankruptcy Claim, if any. No
further amounts would be payable under the CVR following such a
change of control transaction or bankruptcy event.

The non-binding agreement in principle is subject to numerous terms
and conditions including, among other things, (i) the negotiation
and execution of a definitive settlement agreement among the
parties, (ii) the unilateral right of the Company and the other
defendants in the action to terminate the definitive settlement
agreement if persons who purchased a number of shares exceeding a
to be agreed threshold opt out of and elect not to participate in
or be bound by the proposed settlement and (iii) final approval of
the definitive settlement agreement by the Court. There can be no
guarantee that the parties will enter into a definitive settlement
agreement (or the final terms thereof), that the Company and the
other defendants will not exercise their termination right or that
the definitive settlement agreement will receive Court approval.

The Company and the other defendants in the Securities Class Action
Litigation have denied and continue to deny each and all of the
claims alleged in the action, and the entry into the non-binding
agreement in principle is not an admission of wrongdoing or
acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the other defendants.

At a July 30, 2019 conference, the parties to the Securities Class
Action Litigation disclosed to the Court that they had reached a
non-binding agreement in principle to settle the action.

At the July 30, 2019 conference, the Court ordered that the parties
file a motion for preliminary approval no later than August 9,
2019, and set a hearing on the motion for August 26, 2019.

Any objections to the motion for preliminary approval will be due
no later than August 19, 2019. The Court further entered a finding
of relatedness with respect to the Manikay Master Fund Action, and
requested reassignment of that action.

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Prescription
Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Health. Akorn, Inc. was founded in
1971 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


AL'S FORMAL: Faces Reid's ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Al's Formal Wear,
Inc. The case is captioned as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Al's Formal
Wear, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07362-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug 7, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Paul
Oetken.

Al's Formal Wear is a chain of tuxedorental stores that was founded
by A. Haller. The business known as A. Haller Taylor shop on 311
Main street in Fort Worth, Texas in 1950.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

ALJ REGIONAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Marshall Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that in the case styled Marshall v.
Faneuil, Inc., an amended complaint was filed by certain plaintiffs
to add a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys
General Act.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall ("Marshall"), filed a
proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ.

Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various
California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil.

Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court, which has been granted.

The Company said, "The case is in early discovery at this time.
Faneuil believes this action is without merit and intends to defend
it vigorously."

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was
formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New
York.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Can't Compel Arbitration in Ferro FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY FERRO, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC, IQOR US,
INC., and SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-49 (ARR) (ST)
(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Allyne R. Ross of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (i) granted Synchrony Bank's
motion to compel compel arbitration, and (ii) Allied Interstate,
LLC and iQor US, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration.

Ferro, commenced the putative class action in January 2019.  He
seeks relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA") and section 349 of New York's General Business Law.

On Aug. 7, 2016, Synchrony received an online application in the
Plaintiff's name for a CareCredit-branded credit card.  Thereafter,
Synchrony mailed the Plaintiff a credit card and a copy of the
credit card agreement governing the account.  It has no record of
either of these items being returned by the post office as
undeliverable.  The agreement contains an arbitration provision,
entitled "Resolving a Dispute with Arbitration."

On Oct. 31, 2016, the Plaintiff incurred a $5,000 charge on the
credit card issued by Synchrony.  The Plaintiff made some payments
on the account, but he subsequently defaulted on his repayment
obligations.  On Oct. 25, 2017, Synchrony placed the Plaintiff's
account with Allied Interstate for collection.

A few months later, the Plaintiff received a letter in the mail
about his outstanding debt.  The letter informed him that his
account was "severely past due," and directed him to contact Allied
to "resolve this issue."  Though the letter was signed by Synchrony
and included Synchrony's address in the top left-hand corner, the
Plaintiff believes that the letter was in fact sent by Allied.  In
the alternative, he alleges that Synchrony sent the letter on
behalf of Allied or to assist Allied "in its attempts to collect
debts."  His complaint argues that the coordinated efforts between
Allied and Synchrony violated the FDCPA and New York's General
Business Law by "deceiving Ferro into believing that the letter
came from Synchrony Bank and leading Ferro to believe that there
could be more severe consequences in not responding to the letter"
because it came from a creditor instead of a debt collector.

Currently pending before the Court are two motions to compel
arbitration.  The first, filed by Synchrony, seeks to compel
arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims against the Bank pursuant to
a 2016 credit card agreement between them.  The second, filed by
the Allied Defendants, seeks to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims against them pursuant to two theories of
contract law: agency and equitable estoppel.

Synchrony moves to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims
pursuant to the 2016 agreement, which provides that "any dispute or
claim between" the accountholder and the Bank must be submitted to
arbitration if either party "make[s] a demand for arbitration."
Account Agreement 2. Plaintiff does not oppose Synchrony's motion.2


Because Judge Ross finds because the arbitration provision is so
broad -- covering "any dispute or claim" between the Plaintiff and
Synchrony, Account Agreement 2 -- the Plaintiff's claims clearly
fit within its scope.  As the party "resisting arbitration," the
Plaintiff bears the burden of challenging the arbitrability of his
claims against Synchrony.  He presents the Court with no reason to
believe that the arbitration provision should not cover his claims
against Synchrony.  Moreover, the agreement contains a valid class
action waiver, which forbids the accountholder from participating
in a "class, representative, or private attorney general action" in
any forum.  Therefore, the Judge grants Synchrony's motion to
compel the arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims on an individual
basis.

The arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and Synchrony
provides that all claims or disputes between them, as well as
Synchrony's "affiliates, agents and/or providers," are subject to
arbitration.  Though this provision would seem to extend the
arbitration agreement to agents like the Allied Defendants, the
Utah Supreme Court has clarified that "an agency relationship with
a principal to a contract does not give the agent the authority to
enforce a contractual term for the agent's own benefit."  Moreover,
the Allied Defendants cite no case law to suggest that an agent can
compel arbitration for its own benefit if a plaintiff also asserts
claims against the principal, and the Court is unable to find any
in its independent research.  Thus, the Judge follows the analysis
of Dipisa v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC and Wojcik v.
Midland Funding, LLC, and concludes that Utah law precludes the
Allied Defendants from compelling the Plaintiff to arbitrate his
claims under an agency theory.

In the alternative, the Allied Defendants argue that they can
compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims under the doctrine of
equitable estoppel.  They assert that it would be inequitable for
the Plaintiff to avoid arbitration in the case because "the subject
matter of the dispute between him and Synchrony is factually
intertwined with the dispute between him and then Allied
Defendants.

The Judge opines that equitable estoppel applies only where the
arbitration agreement "forms the legal basis" for a plaintiff's
claims against the non-signatories; it is not enough that the
contract is factually significant to a plaintiff's claims or has a
'but-for' relationship with them.  Though the Plaintiff's agreement
with Synchrony entitled Synchrony to place his debt with the Allied
Defendants for collection, the agreement does not itself form the
basis for the Plaintiff's claims against the Allied Defendants.  As
a result, the Allied Defendants may not use the arbitration
agreement between the Plaintiff and Synchrony to compel
arbitration.

In the event that the Court denies their motion to compel, the
Allied Defendants ask the Court to stay the non-arbitrable claims
pending the completion of the arbitration against Synchrony Bank.
Because of the near-complete factual overlap between the
Plaintiff's claims against the Allied Defendants and his claims
against Synchrony, the JUdge will grant the request.  Thus, because
a stay of the non-arbitrable claims will promote judicial economy
by reducing "duplication of discovery or issue resolution" and
avoiding "piecemeal litigation," the Plaintiff's claims against the
Allied Defendants will be stayed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ross granted Synchrony's motion to
compel, and denied the Allied Defendants' motion to compel.  During
the pendency of the arbitration against Synchrony, the Plaintiff's
claims against the Allied Defendants are stayed.  Within 14 days of
the resolution of the arbitration against Synchrony, the Plaintiff
will submit a letter updating the Court on the outcome of the
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/LrXlU8 from Leagle.com.

Anthony Ferro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin.

Allied Interstate, LLC & iQor US, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Michael Thomas Etmund -- Mike.Etmund@lawmoss.com -- Moss &
Barnett.

Synchrony Bank, Defendant, represented by Melissa Ann Brown --
mabrown@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


ARK RESTAURANTS: Faces Putative Class Suit over Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ark Restaurants Corp. continues to defend itself against a
labor-related putative class action suit after the Company's motion
to dismiss the complaint was denied in June 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019.

On May 1, 2018, two former tipped service workers (the
"Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated personnel, filed a putative class action lawsuit (the
"Complaint") against the Company and certain subsidiaries as well
as certain officers of the Company (the "Defendants").  Plaintiffs
allege on behalf of themselves and the putative class, that the
Company violated certain of the New York State Labor Laws and
related regulations.  The Complaint seeks unspecified money
damages, together with interest, liquidated damages and attorney
fees.

There has been no discovery on the merits of the Complaint and the
matter is still in the initial stages of discovery concerning
whether the named Plaintiffs are seeking to represent an
appropriate class of tipped service workers and if so, whether the
named Plaintiffs are appropriate class representatives.

The Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was denied on June
27, 2019.

Ark Restaurants said, "The Company believes that the allegations
and claims in the Complaint are without merit, and it intends to
defend itself vigorously in this litigation.  However, the outcomes
of legal actions are unpredictable and subject to significant
uncertainties, and thus it is inherently difficult to determine the
probability or quantification of any loss. Based on information
currently available, including the Company's assessment of the
facts underlying the Complaint and advice of counsel, the amount or
range of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated.
Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any accrual related to
this matter as of June 29, 2019."

Ark Restaurants Corp. owns and operates 20 restaurants and bars, 19
fast food concepts and catering operations in the U.S. The New
York-based Company's portfolio of brands includes Shuckers, The
Rustic Inn, and Southwest Porch.


BARCLAYS BANK: Potter Sues Over FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA POTTER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE; and DOES
1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01547 (C.D. Cal., Aug.
19, 2019) action for damages and all other due and proper relief
individually and on behalf of all other members of the public
similarly situated, allege as follows against Defendants for
Defendants' violations of California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act (hereinafter "CCRAA"), Fair Credit Reporting Act
(hereinafter "FCRA"), and Unfair Competition Law (hereinafter
"UCL"), which protect consumers such as Plaintiff from misleading
business and advertising practices.

Plaintiff brings this class action Complaint against Defendant to
stop Defendant's predatory account management practice of sending
miscalculated statements in an attempt to collect sums from
consumers in excess of the actual payment due, while simultaneously
reporting false and derogatory information to consumers' credit
reports for failure to pay these fabricated sums, and to obtain
redress for a California class of consumers who changed position,
within the applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of
Defendant's false and misleading statements.

Subsequently, Defendant charged late payment fees, and permitted
derogatory information to be placed on Plaintiff's and Class
Members' credit reports indicating that they were late in making
payments on their Credit Account balances. The Defendant
misrepresented to Plaintiff and Class Members that no payment was
due on their accounts, which Plaintiff and Class Members would have
made a payment absent these misrepresentations by Defendant and its
employees. In so doing, Defendant has violated California consumer
protection statutes including the Unfair Competition Law, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff, SAMANTHA POTTER is a natural person residing in
Riverside County in the state of California.

BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, was a financial institution, and regularly
provided information to consumer reporting agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (323) 306-4234
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


BAUSCH HEALTH: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Timber Hill Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Timber Hill LLC remains
pending.

On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain current or former officers and directors.

This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-10246) ("Timber
Hill"), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company's
common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11,
2016.

On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case
No. 3:15-cv-07658). On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Timber Hill complaint.

Briefing on that motion was completed on February 13, 2019.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Valeant Pharmaceuticals Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:15-cv-07658, has denied ValueAct Capital Management L.P.'s
(ValueAct) motion to dismiss.

In October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors.

The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor Rx Services, LLC (Philidor).

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658.
On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Company, and certain current or former officers and
directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the
Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and
certain other parties.

The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity
securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4,
2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the
Company's securities in the United States in the Company's debt and
stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015.

On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 28, 2017, the Court
dismissed certain claims arising out of the Company's private
placement offerings and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On
September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding claims against ValueAct Capital Management L.P. and
affiliated entities. On October 31, 2018, ValueAct filed a motion
to dismiss. On June 30, 2019, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against several class action lawsuits in
Canada.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in
Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, as
previously reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2018, filed on February 20, 2019.

The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial
securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for
periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late
as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations related to the U.S.
Securities Litigation.

The Rosseau-Godbout action was stayed by the Quebec Superior Court
by consent order. The Kowalyshyn action has been consolidated with
the O'Brien action and that consolidated action is stayed in favor
of the Catucci action. In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017,
the judge granted the plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims
under the Quebec Securities Act and authorized the class
proceeding. On October 26, 2017, the plaintiffs issued their
Judicial Application Originating Class Proceedings. A timetable for
certain pre-trial procedural matters in the action has been set and
the notice of certification has been disseminated to class members.
Among other things, the timetable established a deadline of June
19, 2018 for class members to exercise their right to opt-out of
the class.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company, as previously reported in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018,
filed on February 20, 2019, and the factual allegations made in
these actions are substantially similar to those outlined above.
The Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions
do not intend to pursue the actions.

In addition to the class proceedings described above, on April 12,
2018, the Company was served with an application for leave filed in
the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the
Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or
former officers and directors. This proceeding is captioned
BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the
proceeding are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci
class action. On June 18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed
an originating application (Court File No. 500-17-103749-183)
against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil
Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations.

The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci
class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018
deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised
its opt-out rights served the Company with an application in the
Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action
under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain
current or former officers and directors of the Company and its
auditor. That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers'
Retirement System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court
File No. 500-11-055722-181).

The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the
plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in the BlackRock opt-out
proceedings. On that same date, California State Teachers'
Retirement System also served the Company with proceedings (Court
File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting
claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged
misrepresentations.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these
actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company and its
subsidiaries continues to defend an antitrust class action suit
enittled, In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724).

As of June 2018, the Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Oceanside"), Bausch Health US, LLC
(formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) ("Bausch
Health US"), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International) ("Bausch Health Americas") (for the
purposes of this subsection, collectively, the "Company"), were
added as defendants in putative class action multidistrict
antitrust litigation entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724,
16-MD-2724).

The lawsuit to which the Company was added was filed by direct
purchaser plaintiffs and seeks damages under federal antitrust
laws, alleging that the Company's subsidiaries entered into a
conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage
in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals.

Specific claims against the Company's subsidiaries relate to
generic pricing of the Company's metronidazole vaginal product as
part of an alleged overarching conspiracy among generic drug
manufacturers.

As of December 2018, three direct purchaser plaintiffs that had
opted out of the putative class filed an amended complaint in the
MDL that added Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health
Americas, alleging similar claims as the direct purchaser
plaintiffs’ putative class action complaint.

Separate complaints by other plaintiffs which had been consolidated
in the same multidistrict litigation do not name the Company or any
of its subsidiaries as a defendant. The Company has filed motions
to dismiss. Discovery against the Company's subsidiaries has
commenced. The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.


BERGEN COUNTY: Mabille Sues Over Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN MABILLE, MAUREEN BEECH, RITA BLASER, BARBARA MASTEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BERGEN COUNTY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BERGEN COUNTY,
VIOLETTA ARCILLA individually, HARVEY SILBERSTEIN, individually,
and JOHN DOES 1-10, and ABC ORGANZATIONS 1- 10, fictitious names
for persons or entities whose present roles and identities are
unknown, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-16849 (D. N.J., Aug. 19,
2019) is an action, brought by nurses, currently and formerly
employed by Bergen County and the Bergen County Health Care Center
("BCHCC"), who worked at the facility between January 1, 2015 and
the present and continuing up until the date of the conclusion of
this lawsuit, who experienced systemic racial discrimination in the
form of: unwarranted discipline, reduced hours, lost opportunities
to work at an overtime rate of pay, and actual or constructive
termination, due to Defendant Violetta Arcilla becoming BCHCC's
Director of Nursing ("DON") in 2015 and using her position to
discriminate against non-Filipino nurses in favor of nurses of a
Filipino background.

When DON Arcilla became the Director of Nursing at BCHCC (in or
about 2015), she has, as part of a pattern and practice, forced out
(or set up to force out) nurses of non-Filipino ethnicity to allow
her to replace them with nurses – who like DON Arcilla herself
– are of Filipino ancestry. (As of May, 2019 – there have been
at least 10 Filipino nurses hired by Arcilla to replace non-
Filipino nurses). DON Arcilla's bias has infected the County's
decisions with respect to the terms and conditions of the nurses
working at the Defendants' actions constitute violations of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including Plaintiffs.

DON Arcilla has done this to many of the non-Filipino nurses.
Between making life so difficult for non-Filipino nurses – or
creating pretexts for unwarranted discipline and then firing them
– very few non-Filipino nurses are left. The few who remain fear
for their jobs. This concerted effort at pushing Plaintiffs out of
their job is part of a discriminatory scheme that has resulted in
adverse employment actions against Plaintiffs (and their
non-Filipino colleagues) since DON Arcilla began making decisions
about the terms and conditions of these nurses on the County's
behalf, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked as nurses at BCHCC's facility in Rockleigh, New
Jersey.

BCHCC is a nursing home located in Rockleigh, New Jersey (in Bergen
County) that is owned and operated by Bergen County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan Meyers, Esq.
     MEYERS FRIED-GRODIN, LLP
     1259 Route 46 East
     Building 4E, Suite 11
     Parsippany, NJ 07054
     Phone (973) 453-4847
     Fax (973) 975-4922
     Email: Jmeyers@MfgLegal.com


BURKE FOUNDATION: T.S. Sues Over Unpaid Manual Labor
----------------------------------------------------
T.S., by and through his next friend, P.O.; and G.A.; individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
Burke Foundation d/b/a Burke Center for Youth, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00809 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2019) is a Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") claim brought as an "opt-in" collective action, and
their Texas common law claims as an "opt-out" class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly-situated persons, to recover damages as redress for
Pathfinders-RTC's violations of their rights.

Pathfinders-RTC required children with severe emotional disorders
under its care, including Plaintiffs, to perform hours of unpaid
manual labor and other work every week, in violation of the FLSA
and the Texas common law theories of quantum meruit, unjust
enrichment, and money had and received, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are former residents of Pathfinders Ranch, a residential
treatment center ("RTC") for boys aged 11 to 18 operated by
Defendant.

The Burke Foundation is a domestic nonprofit corporation formed and
existing under the laws of the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Rebecca Eisenbrey, Esq.
     Anna Bocchini, Esq.
     EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
     510 S. Congress Ave., Ste. 206
     Austin, TX 78704
     Phone: (512) 474-0007 ext. 132
     Email: reisenbrey@equaljusticecenter.org
            abocchini@equaljusticecenter.org

          - and -

     Ted Evans, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS
     1500 McGowen, Suite 100
     Houston, TX 77004
     Phone: (832) 681-8224
     Email: tevans@disabilityrightstx.org

          - and -

     Peter Hofer, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS
     2222 West Braker Lane
     Austin, TX 78758
     Phone: (512) 454-4816
     Email: phofer@drtx.org



CALDREA COMPANY: Faces Reid Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Caldrea Company.
The case is captioned as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The Caldrea
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07364-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
7, 2019). The case alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to the Judge Gregory H. Woods.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

CAPITAL ONE: Most Wanted Motorsports Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
MOST WANTED MOTORSPORTS LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.; PAIGE A. THOMPSON, and DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01303 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 19,
2019) is a class action lawsuit against Defendants because of their
failure to protect (in the case of Capital One and AWS), or the
theft of (in the case of Ms. Thompson), the confidential
information of Plaintiff and many millions of other individuals and
business entities—including their names, bank account numbers,
Social Security numbers, FEINs, addresses, phone numbers, email
addresses, dates of birth, income information, banking information,
credit scores, credit limits, contact information, and other
private, personal information (collectively, "Personal
Information"). This theft is referred to as the "Data Breach"
herein.

In order to apply for Capital One's banking services, an applicant
must provide Personal Information. Capital One evidently stores
this information indefinitely, on the "cloud," using AWS's cloud
computing services. Defendant Ms. Thompson was able to exploit
glaring vulnerabilities in AWS's systems to perpetrate the Data
Breach at issue.

Capital One expressly promises it is "committed to protecting your
personal and financial information. If we collect identifying
information from you, we will protect that information with
controls based upon internationally recognized security standards,
regulations, and industry-based best practices." AWS had similar
promises. On July 29, 2019, it was revealed that AWS's and Capital
One's failure to protect Capital One's customers' Personal
Information resulted in the exposure of over 100 million
individuals' Personal Information. In its press release concerning
the incident, dated July 29, 2019, Capital One stated: "On July 19,
2019, we determined there was unauthorized access by an outside
individual who obtained certain types of personal information
relating to people who had applied for credit card products and
Capital One credit card customers. This occurred on March 22 and
23, 2019."

Fundamentally, Defendants Capital One and AWS failed to provide the
level of data protection that they expressly promised, thus
exposing millions of individuals' Personal Information to an
increased risk of misuse by unauthorized third parties (e.g.,
identity theft). Had Defendant Capital One informed its customers
that it would use inadequate security measures, consumers (such as
Plaintiff and members of the Class) would not have applied for
credit cards with Capital One. Capital One's and AWS's failure to
implement adequate security protocols jeopardized millions of
consumers' Personal Information, fell well short of its promises,
and diminished the value of the services provided. Accordingly,
Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated business entities, to seek redress for Defendants'
unlawful conduct, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Most Wanted Motorsports LLC, a Kansas Limited Liability
Company, applied for a Capital One Card in April of 2019, and was
approved.

Capital One is one of the largest banks in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     T. David Copley, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
            lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            dcopley@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     Christopher Springer, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     801 Garden Street, Suite 301
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Fax: (805) 456-1497
     Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
     ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
     320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
     Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
     Phone: (918) 588-3400
     Fax: (800) 969-6570
     Email: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com


CAVALRY SPV I: Hutchison Sues Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA HUTCHISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY SPV I LLC, and CAVALRY
PORTFOLIO SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01001-DSC
(W.D. Pa., Aug. 14, 2019) is an action seeking damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs against Defendants for their violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act ("FCEUA"), Chapter 63 of the Consumer Credit Code
("CCC"), and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL").

On November 6, 2018, Defendants sued Plaintiff in an Allegheny
County Magisterial District Court (the "Action") on a credit card
account previously issued to Plaintiff (the "Account"). The Account
was issued by Capital One Bank. The Account was used to buy goods
and obtain services from various retailers, sellers, and
businesses, for personal, household, or family use. Any purchases
or sales made on the Account were to be paid in installments to
Capital One Bank. A finance charge expressed as a percent of the
periodic balance accrued on the Account's balances. In the Action,
Defendants claimed CSPV purchased the Account from Capital One
Bank. Plaintiff hired counsel to defend the Action, and ultimately
obtained a dismissal with prejudice against Defendants in the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff should not have
had to defend the Action or pay an attorney to do so because
Defendants did not have authority to file suit against Plaintiff.

Prior to filing suit, Defendants did not send by certified mail to
Plaintiff's last known address, or personally deliver to
Plaintiff's residence, a notice that informed Plaintiff of the: i)
right to cure the default on the Account within 21 days of the date
of receipt of the notice; ii) the name, address and telephone
number of the seller or holder of the Account; iii) the total
amount due on the Account; iv) the exact date by which the amount
due on the Account must be paid; v) the name, address and telephone
number of the person to whom payment must be made; and vi) any
other performance necessary to cure default on the Account. As a
result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff hired counsel on the
belief that Defendants had the authority to initiate suit.
Plaintiff should not have been forced to defend the Action because
Defendants had no authority to sue Plaintiff, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Joshua Hutchison is and was a resident of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.

Cavalry SPV I LLC's (CSPV) sole business is the purchasing of
defaulted consumer debt with the purpose of collecting on that debt
for profit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     BCJ Law LLC
     186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127
     Pittsburgh, PA 15201
     Phone: (412) 223-5740
     Email: kevina@bcjlawyer.com

          - and –

     Gary Lynch, Esq.
     Edwin Kilpela, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
            ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com



CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Vectren Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
related to its merger with Vectren Corporation.

On February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CenterPoint
Energy consummated the previously announced Merger and acquired
Vectren for approximately $6 billion in cash. On the Merger Date,
Vectren became a wholly-owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy.

With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits
were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of
Vectren's Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

These lawsuits allege violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Vectren Proxy
Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was materially incomplete because
it omitted material information concerning the Merger.

The lawsuits also seek certification as class actions.

In August 2018, the seven lawsuits were consolidated, and the Court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

The plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint in October 2018, which the defendants have moved to
dismiss and which motion remains pending.

The plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the motion to
dismiss in January 2019, and Vectren filed its reply in support of
the motion to dismiss in February 2019.

In December 2018, two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuits, for which the Court entered an order approving the
voluntary dismissal and dismissed without prejudice in January
2019.

The defendants believe that the allegations asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims
raised. CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of
this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. wholesales natural gas and
energy products. The Company gathers, processes, and treats natural
gas and electricity, as well as provides administrative support.
CenterPoint Energy Resources operates in the United States. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.


CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Removes Franco et al. Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MANUEL FRANCO; JOSE RIOS; and LUIS
RIOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC; and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Bernardino (Case No.
CIVDS1902553) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on August 7, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. Case No. 5:19-cv-01464).
The case is assigned to Judge Jesus G. Bernal and referred to
Magistrate Sheri Pym.

Central Transport,LLC provides transportation services. The Company
offers cross-docking, truckloading, and supply chain services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian Keeney, Esq.
          Alis M. Moon, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: christian.keeney@ogletreedeakins.com
                  alis.moon@ogletree.com


CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. continues to face a class action suit
initially filed in May 2019 in Ohio related to alleged off-site
contamination, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

On May 26, 2019, the Company, its subsidiary United States
Enrichment Corp. ("Enrichment Corp."), and five other Department of
Energy ("DOE") contractors who have operated facilities at the
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant ("GDP") site were named as
defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone,
Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by
and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site.
The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current
or former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP
site and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn's Corner
Middle School from 1993-present.

Centrus Energy said, "The Company and Enrichment Corp. have not
been served with the complaint.  The Company believes that its
operations at the Portsmouth GDP site and American Centrifuge Plant
site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's regulations.  Further the Company believes that any
such liability should be covered by our indemnification under the
Price-Anderson Act.  The Company and Enrichment Corp. has provided
notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the
Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions."

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services.  The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014.  Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.


CENTRUS ENERGY: Pritchard Suit over Offsite Contamination Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed in June
2019 in Ohio related to alleged off-site contamination, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On June 28, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and four other
Department of Energy ("DOE") contractors who have operated
facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed by Ray Pritchard and Sharon Melick
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site.
The Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all current or
former residents within a 7-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP
site.

Centrus Energy said, "The Company and Enrichment Corp. have not
been served with the complaint.  The Company believes that its
operations at the Portsmouth GDP site and American Centrifuge Plant
site were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's regulations.  Further the Company believes that any
such liability should be covered by our indemnification under the
Price-Anderson Act.  The Company and Enrichment Corp. has provided
notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the
Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions."

Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally.  The Company operates in two segments,
Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services.  The Company was
formerly known as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy
Corp. in September 2014.  Centrus Energy Corp. is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.


CENTURYLINK INC: $19MM Settlement of Consumer Class Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that its ultimate parent company, CenturyLink, Inc.,
has agreed to settle consumer putative class actions for payments
of US$15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to US$3.5
million for administrative costs.  The agreement is still subject
to confirmatory discovery and court approval.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against CenturyLink in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that it charged
some of its retail customers for products and services they did not
authorize.  A number of other complaints asserting similar claims
have been filed in other federal and state courts, as well.  The
lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.

Also, in June 2017, Craig v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it failed to
disclose material information regarding improper sales practices,
and asserting federal securities law claims.  A number of other
cases asserting similar claims have also been filed.

Beginning June 2017, CenturyLink received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics.  In August 2017,
CenturyLink's Board of Directors formed a special litigation
committee of outside directors to address the allegations of
impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands.  In
April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its review
of the derivative demands and declined to take further action.
Since then, derivative cases were filed.  Two of these cases,
Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed in Louisiana state
court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ouachita.  The remaining derivative cases were filed in federal
court in Louisiana and Minnesota.  These cases have been brought on
behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former officers
and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.

The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor
putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as
In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.
Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, CenturyLink
agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for payments
of US$15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to US$3.5
million for administrative costs.  CenturyLink has accrued a
contingent liability for those amounts.

Qwest Corporation, an integrated communications company, provides
communications services to business and residential customers in
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is based in
Monroe, Louisiana. Qwest Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
CenturyLink, Inc.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cyber-Attack Related Class Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the class action suits
Howard v. Citrix, Jackson and Sargent v. Citrix, and Ramus, Young
and Charles v. Citrix, were filed on May 24, 2019, May 30, 2019,
and June 23, 2019, respectively, have been consolidated.

On March 6, 2019, the Federal Bureau of Investigation informed
Citrix, an approved vendor of the U.S. Department of Defense, that
cyber criminals had infiltrated Citrix's internal network.

On March 8, 2019, Citrix disclosed on its website blog that "the
FBI contacted Citrix to advise they had reason to believe that
international cyber criminals gained access to the internal Citrix
network". Citrix, however, did not give written notice to
Plaintiffs and Class members that its network had been compromised
until April 29, 2019 - almost two months after it learned of the
Data Breach from the FBI.

Criminals had access to Citrix's systems between October 13, 2018
and March 8, 2019 and stole files that contained the information of
current and former Citrix employees, and beneficiary and dependent
information of Citrix employees. The stolen information includes
names, Social Security numbers, and financial information, such as
bank routing numbers and checking account numbers (Personal
Financial Information or PFI).

Both current and former employees, including their beneficiaries
and/or dependents, have either suffered identity theft and/or will
be at a heightened risk for identify theft for the rest of their
lives. Criminals can use the Personal Financial Information to
steal money from checking and/or savings accounts; fraudulently
open credit card accounts; take out loans; file tax returns; apply
for benefits; and obtain employment, among other things.

Although it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcomes of this
cyberattack, to date, three putative class action lawsuits have
been filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

These matters, Howard v. Citrix, Jackson and Sargent v. Citrix, and
Ramus, Young and Charles v. Citrix, were filed on May 24, 2019, May
30, 2019, and June 23, 2019, respectively, and have been
consolidated.

The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of current
and former employees (and their dependents) of the Company,
generally claim to have been harmed by the Company's alleged
actions and/or omissions in connection with this incident and their
personal data.

They assert a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking
monetary damages or other related relief.

Citrix Systems said, "The Company is unable to currently determine
the ultimate outcome of these legal proceedings or the potential
exposure or loss, if any, because the legal proceedings remain in
the early stages, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to
be resolved."

Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers
Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace
Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's
Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services
solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and
professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is
an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines
in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit over GoTo Services Spinoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company, together
with LogMeIn, Inc., has been named as a defendant in a class action
suit related to the company's 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family
of service offerings.

On July 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against Citrix,
LogMeIn, Inc. ("LogMeIn") and certain of their directors and
officers in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making alleged misstatements and omissions in
LogMeIn's Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection
with the 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings
and subsequent merger of that business with LogMeIn. The complaint
seeks among other things the recovery of monetary damages.  

The Company believes that Citrix and its directors have meritorious
defenses to these allegations, however, the Company is unable to
currently determine the ultimate outcome of this matter or the
potential exposure or loss, if any.

Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers
Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace
Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's
Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services
solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and
professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is
an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines
in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Kennedy FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as KIM KENNEDY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CMRE
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-16455-KM-SCM (D.N.J., Aug. 7, 2019). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty. The case is alleges
violation of Fair Debt Collection Act.

CMRE Financial provides financial services. The company offers
electronic fund transfer, collection, managed care, and training
services to health care organizations.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

COMSCORE INC: Bratusov Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Sergii Bratusov.

On April 10, 2019, Sergii Bratusov, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired
securities of the Company between November 9, 2018 and March 29,
2019.

The case, captioned Bratusov v. comScore, Inc., et al., Case No. 19
Civ. 03210, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and also names the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, Gregory Fink, and the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer, Bryan Wiener, as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Company, Mr. Wiener, and Mr. Fink
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by allegedly failing to disclose in public
statements between November 2018 and March 2019 material
information concerning unspecified difficulties implementing the
Company's business strategy and the impact of these alleged
difficulties on the Company's financial results.

The complaint also alleges that Mr. Wiener and Mr. Fink, acting as
control persons of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with the Company's alleged failure to
disclose material information.

The complaint seeks a determination of the propriety of the class,
compensatory damages and the award of reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action.

comScore said, "The defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability and
intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Although the
ultimate outcome of this matter is unknown, the Company believes
that a material loss was not probable or estimable as of June 30,
2019."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


COMSCORE INC: Privacy Class Action Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against the Privacy Class Action Litigation.

On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary,
Full Circle Studies, Inc., ("Full Circle"), received demand letters
on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal
information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable
parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such
personal information by embedding advertising software development
kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by The Walt
Disney Company. The letters sought monetary damages, attorney'’
fees and damages under Massachusetts law.

On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adding
the Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class
action (captioned Rushing, et al v. The Walt Disney Company, et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419-JD) against Disney, Twitter and other
defendants, alleging violations of California's constitutional
right to privacy and intrusion upon seclusion law, New York’s
deceptive trade practices statute, and Massachusetts' deceptive
trade practices and right to privacy statutes.

The complaints allege damages in excess of $5 million, with any
award to be apportioned among the defendants.

On May 22, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaints. The Company and Full Circle deny any wrongdoing or
liability and intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

comScore said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter is
unknown, the Company believes that a material loss was not probable
or estimable as of June 30, 2019."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company
that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across
media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


CORRECT CARE: Class of Inmates with HCV in Woodcock Suit Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN WOODCOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORRECT CARE
SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 3:16-cv-00096-GFVT
(E.D. Ky.), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division,
Frankfort, (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class;
(ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction; and
(iii) denied as moot parties' Joint Motion to Continue Evidentiary
Hearing.

The named Plaintiffs in the matter, Ruben Rios Salinas, Brian
Woodcock, Keath Bramblett, and Jessica Lawrence, are inmates,
incarcerated with the Kentucky Department of Corrections ("KDOC").
Each has been diagnosed with the Hepatitis C virus ("HCV").  The
Defendants are various official and nonofficial entities, all sued
in their individual capacities, charged with managing the HCV
treatment plan for and providing care to inmates.

The Plaintiffs believe they have not been provided constitutionally
adequate treatment for their HCV infections.  The Defendants do not
contest the facts surrounding the care the Plaintiffs have
received, but disagree that such care is inadequate.  According to
research provided by the Plaintiffs, only around 1% of Americans
suffer from HCV, but incarcerated populations experience a
significantly higher incidence: at least ten percent, and as many
as forty percent, of the inmate population suffers from HCV.  KDOC
has allegedly diagnosed approximately ten percent of their inmates
with HCV, though the Plaintiffs believe the true number of
HCV-positive inmates could be higher.

According to literature provided by the Center for Disease Control
and Prevention, HCV is a blood-borne virus which causes a liver
infection known as Hepatitis C.  The infection begins as "acute
hepatitis C," which occurs within the first six months after
exposure, but left untreated can evolve into "chronic hepatitis C."
The CDC indicates people with acute hepatitis C should only be
considered for treatment if the infection becomes chronic. Id.

Since approval in 2011, direct acting antivirals ("DAAs") have been
successful in eliminating the virus in HCV patients.  DAAs boast
both a higher cure rate as well as a higher initial price tag.  The
Plaintiffs bring the action, in part, because the Defendants
"ration" DAA treatment, only giving DAA treatment to approximately
5% of the infected population.  The Defendants do not disagree with
the Plaintiffs' facts, and do not claim to be giving DAA treatment
to all HCV patients.  Instead, they argue that giving DAAs to all
HCV-infected is not recommended, and inmates receive differing
levels of monitoring and testing specific to their HCV.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of all Kentucky
inmates also diagnosed with the Hepatitis C virus who are also
under the care of the Defendants.  Additionally, they seek
injunctive relief regarding the Defendants' diagnostic and
treatment practices.

Judge Van Tatenhove finds that class certification is appropriate
in the matter; all requirements under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 have been established.  Furthermore, other District
Courts have agreed that class certification is appropriate for
inmates seeking improved HCV care.  However, the Judge cannot
resolve a constitutional question on bare assertions and
speculations simply because the Plaintiffs believe the Defendants
should be distributing DAAs to all infected inmates.  

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class.  He certified a class defined as all inmates in Kentucky
prisons who have been diagnosed, or will be diagnosed, with chronic
hepatitis C virus (HCV) for the purpose of injunctive relief.  

Plaintiff Ruben Rios Salinas and Plaintiff Jessica Lawrence will
serve as the class representatives.  Gregory Allen Belzley, Camille
Bathurst, and Aaron Joseph Bentley, attorneys from the law firm
Belzley, Bathurst & Bentley, are appointed as the class council.

The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction.
He cancelled the hearing on the matter, scheduled for July 25,
2019.  Finally, he denied as moot the parties' Joint Motion to
Continue Evidentiary Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/VydNg4 from Leagle.com.

Brian Woodcock, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Ruben Rios Salinas, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Keath Bramblett, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Camille Bathurst -- camillebathurst@aol.com -- Belzley Bathurst,
Attorneys & Gregory Allen Belzley -- gbelzley@aol.com -- Belzley
Bathurst, Attorneys.

Correct Care Solutions, LLC & Dr. Frederick Kemen, MD,
Individually, Defendants, represented by William Ellis Sharp --
wsharp@bdblawky.com -- Blackburn, Domene & Burchett PLLC.

James Erwin, Individually, Defendant, represented by Allison R.
Brown, KY Department of Corrections - General Counsel, Barry L.
Dunn, Dunn Law PLLC & Megan Handshoe Kinsolving, Kinsolving Law
PLLC.

LaDonna Thompson, Individually, APRN Denise Burkett, Doug Crall,
MD, Individually, Cookie Crews, Individually & Rodney Ballard,
Individually, Defendants, represented by Allison R. Brown, KY
Department of Corrections - General Counsel & Edward A. Baylous,
II, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet.

Kentucky Department of Corrections, for Injunctive Relief Only,
Defendant, represented by Edward A. Baylous, II, Justice & Public
Safety Cabinet.


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses E. Morrow's Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued an Order dismissing Pro Se Civil
Rights Complaint in the case captioned ERNIE MORROW, Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01510-C (BT).
(N.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Dallas County jail, and others filed a
putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sectioon 1983, alleging
the Dallas County jail is violating their rights by segregating
inmates into housing units based on race.

The Court determined Plaintiff and the other inmates should not be
allowed to proceed as a class and ordered that the case be severed
into individual actions to allow each inmate to represent himself.
The Court further ordered each individual plaintiff to pay a filing
fee of $400.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee nor did he file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. The Court sent Plaintiff a notice of
deficiency reminding him to pay the filing fee or a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency notice was returned to
the Court because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in the Dallas
County jail. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any
forwarding or alternate address.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court
to dismiss an action sua spontefor failure to prosecute or for
failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order.   

Here, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However,
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current address,
so the Court is unable to communicate with him and advise him of
the requirement to pay the fee or file an appropriate motion. This
litigation cannot proceed until Plaintiff provides the Court with
his current address.  

The complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y32u9a3w from Leagle.com.

Ernie Morrow, Plaintiff, pro se.


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses T. Patterson's Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued an Order dismissing Pro Se Civil
Rights Complaint in the captioned TREVOR PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01509-C (BT).
(N.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Dallas County jail, and others filed a
putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging
the Dallas County jail is violating their rights by segregating
inmates into housing units based on race.

The Court determined Plaintiff and the other inmates should not be
allowed to proceed as a class and ordered that the case be severed
into individual actions to allow each inmate to represent himself.
The Court further ordered each individual plaintiff to pay a filing
fee of $400.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee; nor did he file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court sent Plaintiff a notice of deficiency reminding him to
pay the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  The
deficiency notice was returned to the Court because Plaintiff is no
longer incarcerated in the Dallas County jail. Plaintiff has not
provided the Court with any forwarding or alternate address.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court
to dismiss an action sua spontefor failure to prosecute or for
failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order.

Here, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However,
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current address,
so the Court is unable to communicate with him and advise him of
the requirement to pay the fee or file an appropriate motion. This
litigation cannot proceed until Plaintiff provides the Court with
his current address.  

The complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for
want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4ukod5p from Leagle.com.

Trevor Patterson, Plaintiff, pro se.


DELANCEY'S LUDLOW: Epifanio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR MARTINEZ EPIFANIO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELANCEY'S LUDLOW LLC (D/B/A
GREEN STAR FOODS), KIRAN K LAL, RAJESH SHAH, PRATIK SHAH, MANAN
SHAH, MANGESH SHAH, and PABLO DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07593 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019) is an action on behalf of
himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the
"NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage
Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Martinez has worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he has worked. Rather,
Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Martinez appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants have failed to pay
Plaintiff Martinez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day
in which he has had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants
have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff
Martinez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Martinez has been employed as a delivery worker and an
assistant at the convenient store.

Defendants own, operate, or control a convenient store, located at
95 Delancey Street, New York, New York 10002 under the name "Green
Star Foods".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


DISH DBS: 4th Circuit Affirms $61MM Judgment for Krakauer Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that in the Krakauer Action, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the District Court's
US$61 million judgment in favor of the class.


On March 25, 2009, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary DISH
Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States
Attorney General and several states in the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois (the "FTC Action"),
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as
analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover US$400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.

On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court
for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017.  On May 22, 2017,
the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and
trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each call made in
violation of TCPA.

On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a US$61 million judgment in
favor of the class.  DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30,
2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed.

During the second quarter 2017, the Company recorded US$41 million
of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on the
Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss).  The Company recorded US$20 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the
fourth quarter 2016.  The Company's total accrual related to the
Krakauer Action at June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 was US$61
million and was included in "Other accrued expenses" on the
Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  This has
subsequently been paid.

DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.


DISH DBS: Officers & Firefighters Retirement Fund Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation is facing a putative class action styled City
of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

On July 2, 2019, the putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada.  

The lawsuit names as defendants Mr. Ergen, the other members of the
EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its officers, DISH
Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's affiliates.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.  

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case, but cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces Nazario Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as GISELA M. NAZARIO,
Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, CAVALRY SPV I, LLC,
and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-16459-ES-SCM (D.N.J., Aug 7, 2019). The suit alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Esther Salas.

Dynamic Recovery is a full service debt collection agency.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          Kim Law Firm LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

EAST COAST: Xu Seeks OT Pay for Tourism Operations Specialist
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIASHENG XU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. EAST COAST HOLIDAY INC. d/b/a UNIVERSAL VISION
GROUP, JUPITER LEGEND CORPORATION d/b/a UNIVERSAL VISION GROUP,
RICH G. SUN, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07736 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019), contends that Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
arising from Defendants' willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns, and practices of failing to pay its employees, including
Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff consistently worked approximately 40-45 hours per
week, and regularly worked shifts lasting more than 10 hours in a
day.

Rather than paying employees based on their number of hours worked,
the Defendants maintained a practice of paying Plaintiff and other
employees only 20 hours a week regardless of the number of hours
worked.

Mr. Xu was employed by Defendants as a Tourism Operations
Specialist from on or about April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2019.

Universal Vision issues prepaid debit cards for use in place of
cash. The Company also offers e-commerce software solutions and
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Thomas Hsien Chih Kung, Esq.
          JIA LAW GROUP, P.C.
          225 Broadway, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 0007
          Telephone: (347) 897-6199

EDRIVING LLC: Glynn Sues over BIPA Violations
---------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against eDriving, LLC,
Vocalect Biometric Solutions, LLC d/b/a Voice Biometrics Group,
Liquid Web, LLC, and Aspect Software, Inc. for alleged violations
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The case
is captioned JACK GLYNN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. EDRIVING, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, VOCALECT BIOMETRIC SOLUTIONS,
LLC D/B/A VOICE BIOMETRICS GROUP, a Pennsylvania limited liability
company, LIQUID WEB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
ASPECT SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2019CH08517 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., July 19, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants actively capture, collect,
process, store, disseminate, and otherwise use the biometrics of
Illinois residents without obtaining their informed consent and
without regard to BIPA and the concrete privacy rights and
pecuniary interests that BIPA protects. Accordingly, Plaintiff
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to comply with BIPA, as
well as an award of statutory damages to the Class members and
monetary damages to be determined at trial, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

EDriving, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company transacting
business throughout Illinois, including in Cook County. Defendant
eDriving intentionally markets its services to consumers throughout
Illinois, including in Cook County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jad Sheikali, Esq.
     Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 893-7002
     E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
             tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

EGALET CORP: Appeal in Class Suit Proceeds vs. Officer Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zyla Life Sciences disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that the appeal from a district court's order
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are proceeding
as it relates to certain current and former officers. A stay on the
proceeding has been lifted as the plaintiffs' claim against the
Company was extinguished as part of the bankruptcy, restarting the
appellate process.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation and current officer Robert S. Radie
and former officers Stanley J. Musial and Jeffrey M. Dayno (the
"Officer Defendants" and together with Egalet Corporation, the
"Defendants").  These two complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet
Corp.  et al., No. 2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp.  et
al., No. 2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities fraud claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet Corporation securities
between December 15, 2015 and January 9, 2017 and seek damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other expenses.

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases (the "Securities Class Action Litigation") before it,
appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting of Joseph
Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead plaintiff and
approving their selection of lead and liaison counsel.

On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint, which named the same Defendants and also asserted claims
for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of Egalet between November 4, 2015 and
January 9, 2017 inclusive.  The consolidated amended complaint
based its claims on allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and/or failures to disclose information about the likelihood that
ARYMO ER would be approved for intranasal abuse-deterrent
labeling.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 1, 2017 (the "Motion to Dismiss"), the plaintiffs
filed their opposition on October 31, 2017, and the Defendants
filed their reply on December 8, 2017.  The Court heard oral
arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 2018 and entered
an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint on March 6, 2018.  The
Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the plaintiffs filed
their reply on March 27, 2018.  The Court heard oral arguments on
the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
on July 12, 2018.

On August 2, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Securities Class Action Litigation with
prejudice.  On August 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeal for the Third
Circuit.

On November 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of
bankruptcy and unopposed motion to stay the appeal as to the
Officer Defendants (the appeal was automatically stayed as to the
Company upon the Chapter 11 filing).

On February 6, 2019, the Officer Defendants filed a Notice of
Lifting of Automatic Stay of Proceedings and Discharge of
Subordinated Claims, as plaintiffs' claim against the Company was
extinguished as part of the bankruptcy, which restarted the
appellate process.

On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed their brief with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Defendants filed
their brief on May 22, 2019 and Plaintiffs filed their reply on
June 12, 2019.

The Company disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and intends to
defend these actions vigorously.  The Company cannot determine the
likelihood of, nor can it reasonably estimate the range of, any
potential loss, if any, from these lawsuits.

Egalet Corporation, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and commercializes treatments for patients with pain
and other conditions. Egalet Corporation was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.  


EPIC GAMES: Heidbreder Sues over Fortnite User Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HEIDBREDER, the Plaintiff, vs. EPIC GAMES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00348-BO (E.D.N.C., Aug. 8, 2019),
alleges that Defendant failed to maintain adequate security
measures and notify users of the security breach in a timely
manner.

The case involves a data breach Epic Games announced on January 16,
2019, where the personal information of 200 million Fortnite users
was exposed due to a flaw in Fortnite's code that allowed hackers
and other nefarious users to take over player accounts and exploit
their personal information for unsavory and illegal purposes (Data
Breach).

Epic Games developed and operates Fortnite, a popular battle-royale
style video game played by approximately 80 million people per
month and with approximately 200 million registered users across
computer, console, and mobile platforms.

As part of the sign-up process and as a consequence of playing
Fortnite, users create, maintain, and update accounts containing
personal information, including their names, email addresses, and
credit or debit card information (personally identifiable
information).

On January 16, 2019, Epic Games publicly acknowledged that Fortnite
users' PII was subject to a security breach, but did not disclose a
timeframe for the Data Breach or how many accounts were impacted.
Epic Games has not yet directly informed or notified individual
Fortnite users that their PII may be compromised as a result of the
breach.

Epic Games' acknowledgement only came after Check Point Software
Technologies Ltd. ("Check Point"), a cybersecurity firm, discovered
vulnerabilities in Fortnite's web infrastructure and disclosed
their findings to Epic Games in November of 2018.

Fortnite's vulnerabilities stemmed from its single sign-on ("SSO")
setup, a mechanism that allows users to log into multiple services
with the same third-party account such Epic Games, Xbox, or Google.
Once logged into a third-party account, users could log in and
access their Fortnite account by requesting the third-party account
send an access token to Fortnite.

Hackers exploited the SSO by distributing phishing links over
social media messages or forum posts claiming, inter alia, to be
about a Fortnite promotion. When users opened the link, they were
asked to log in to their Fortnite account via the SSO. But instead
of having the third-party account send the security token to the
legitimate login, hackers redirected those users to an old,
unsecured URL maintained by Epic Games. Check Point's research
revealed that hackers could embed that URL with malicious
JavaScript allowing them to steal Fortnite access tokens which they
could then use to take over users' accounts.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
          Alexander F. Beale
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 E. Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303)757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: ngoi@fdazar.com
                  bealea@fdazar.com

               - and -

          Martha Geer, Esq.
          Adam Langino, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 980
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 890-0560
          Facsimile: (919) 890-0567
          E-mail: mgeer@cohenmilstein.com
                  alangino@cohenmilstein.com

FBCS INC: Bicknell Sues over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Financial Business
and Consumer Solutions, Inc. (FBCS) and Midland Funding, LLC for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). The case is captioned Lora Bicknell, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial
Business and Consumer Solutions., d/b/a FBCS, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation, and Midland Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02417-KHV-ADM (D. Kan., July
19, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' form debt collection letter
violated the FDCPA because it failed to identify effectively the
current creditor to whom the debt was owed. Although the Defendants
attempted to provide a disclaimer that the debt was time-barred,
that disclaimer was ineffective because: a) they failed to
foreclose the possibility that Midland could not sue on the debt,
but rather that Midland had simply chosen not to sue; and, b) they
did not state that FBCS could not sue to collect the debt.

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. operates a
nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts
from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the
state of Kansas. Midland is a bad debt buyer that buys large
portfolios of defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar,
which it then collects upon through other collection agencies.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
     James R. Crump, Esq.
     CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
     222 West Gregory Suite 210
     Kansas City, MO 64114
     Telephone: (816) 822-4041
     E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com
             james@callahanlawkc.com

             - and -

     David J. Philipps, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
     9760 S. Roberts Road Suite One
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Telephone: (708) 974-2900
     Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
     E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com

FLINT, MI: Lawyers Seek Appointment of Settlement Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers leading the litigation over the water crisis in Flint,
Michigan, have submitted a diverse group of attorneys to serve as
settlement counsel, along with a retired judge to oversee the
allocation process, should both sides reach a deal to resolve the
legal claims.

In an Aug. 15, 2019 motion, lead plaintiffs counsel floated the
names of five attorneys to serve as settlement counsel for various
subclasses of claimants, such as children with personal injuries
and businesses with economic losses. They also suggested that
retired U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips of the Western District
of Oklahoma, who was a mediator in \the Equifax data breach
settlement, serve as "neutral settlement facilitator."

In submitting the names, co-lead class counsel Ted Leopold, Esq. --
tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- and Michael Pitt, Esq. --
mpitt@pittlawpc.com -- said they were filing the motion "in
contemplation of the possibility of reaching a settlement with some
or all of the defendants." They said having separate settlement
counsel would ensure adequate representation of a disparate group
of claimants and avoid the risk that a class action agreement would
unravel. A neutral, such as Phillips, would ensure the allocation
process was fair, they wrote.

"Here, class counsel propose subclass settlement counsel to serve
solely for the limited purpose of negotiating settlement allocation
and a distribution plan on behalf of their respective subclass
members," they wrote. At the same time, they wrote, they would
continue to move the case forward toward trial.

In August 15's motion, Leopold and Pitt acknowledged the challenges
in their case.

"Many were hurt by the Flint water crisis and their desire for
justice cannot be understated," they wrote. "Yet, as the court is
aware, the avenues for recovery in this matter present several
challenges."

Leopold, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida, declined to comment about the motion. The five
proposed settlement counsel did not respond to requests for
comment. They are Reed Colfax, Esq. -- rcolfax@relmanlaw.com -- a
partner at Relman, Dane & Colfax; Vincent Ward, Esq., a partner at
FBD Law; Sarah London, Esq., a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein; Dennis Reich, Esq., a partner at Reich & Binstock; and
Seth Lesser, Esq., founding partner of Klafter Olsen & Lesser.

The submission of settlement counsel is the latest chapter in a
case filed in 2017 on behalf of Flint residents with health
problems and businesses suffering diminished property values after
government officials switched the source of their drinking water.
It is one of several cases pending over the Flint water crisis.

In April 2014, state officials decided to shift Flint's water
supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River, despite studies warning
that the corrosive nature of the river could risk lead getting into
the drinking water.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Judith Levy of the Eastern District
of Michigan in Ann Arbor, appointed two mediators in the
consolidated class action: former U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan,
and former Wayne County Chief Judge Pro Tem Pamela Harwood. She
also appointed a special master, Deborah Greenspan, a partner at
Blank Rome in Washington, D.C., to oversee attorney billing and
other matters after a fee fight broke out among the lead plaintiffs
attorneys.

Procedural hurdles also have mired the litigation, with the latest
rulings, by Levy, paring down the class claims, then reinstating
former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder as a defendant. Defendants are
city and state officials, along with three engineering firms.

In June, state prosecutors in Michigan dropped criminal charges in
the Flint case against eight government officials but vowed to
reopen an investigation. At a town hall later that month, Pitt, of
Pitt McGehee Palmer and Rivers in Royal Oak, Michigan, assured
Flint residents that a settlement of their civil claims was still
possible.

Levy ordered lawyers to file a motion seeking appointment of a
negotiating subclass.

On July 29, Leopold and Pitt suggested the names of five law
professors: Steven Croley and Kimberly Thomas, both of the
University of Michigan Law School; Joshua Davis of the University
of San Francisco School of Law; Mable Martin-Scott of Western
Michigan University's Cooley School of Law; and Myriam Gilles of
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, at Yeshiva University in New
York.

Two days later, Levy struck down the suggestions, primarily because
none of the law professors had much experience representing clients
in actual class actions.

"The court appreciates the efforts interim co-lead class counsel
have undertaken to protect the integrity of the class process, but
unfortunately the proposal fails to meet the requirements for the
appointment of interim subclass settlement counsel," she wrote.
"Indeed, not one of the proposed interim subclass settlement
counsel states that they have ever been part of negotiating a
settlement in a class action."

She also questioned whether any of the law professors could "take a
leave from their teaching obligations to devote the kind of time
and attention this case will require in the coming months."

Following an Aug. 7, 2019 hearing, Levy ordered lawyers to submit a
revised motion this week. She set the next status conference for
Sept. 25.

The new slate addressed the judge's concerns, Leopold and Pitt
wrote. According to their motion, they addressed concerns about the
class action with Greenspan in a May 28 memo, suggesting the idea
of appointing subclass settlement counsel to "advocate for each
category of claimants should a gross settlement be reached and an
allocation process ensue." In a footnote, they said New York
University School of Law professor Samuel Issacharoff, an expert on
class actions, had agreed to advise them on the matter. Issacharoff
also is working with plaintiffs lawyers in the multidistrict
litigation over the opioid crisis who have proposed a "negotiation
class" for purposes of a possible settlement.

In addition to the Equifax deal, Phillips, founder of Phillips ADR
Enterprises in Newport Beach, California, mediated the NFL
concussion litigation and sexual abuse cases brought against
Michigan State University.

Here is more about each of the proposed settlement counsel:

   -- Colfax, in Washington, D.C., would serve as counsel for a
subclass of children asserting injuries. He previously has served
as an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund Inc. and the
Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

   -- Ward, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, would serve as counsel for
a subclass of adults alleging injuries. The Obama Administration
appointed him to serve as senior counsel to Solicitor Hilary
Tompkins at the U.S. Department of Interior.

   -- London, in San Francisco, would serve as counsel for a
subclass of claimants alleging property damages. She has
represented plaintiffs in environmental disaster cases involving
gas leaks and oil spills in California and helped allocate a $100
million settlement for 400 smokers in Florida against cigarette
companies.

   -- Reich, in Houston, would serve as counsel for a subclass of
class members alleging business losses. Frequently appointed in
mass torts, he previously served on the economic loss and damage
committee in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation.

   -- Lesser, in New York, would serve as counsel for a subclass of
claimants who may allege injuries in the future. He obtained the
"first certification under New York law for a medical monitoring
class" in the litigation over Fen/Phen diet drugs, according to the
motion. [GN]


FLORIDA: Dept. of Children and Families Face Harrell et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Department of
Children and Families, et al. The case is captioned as Clayton
Harrell and Austin Trueblood, by and through his guardian, Suzanne
Trueblood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Chad Poppell, in his official
capacity as Secretary for the Florida Department of Children and
Families and Mary Mayhew, in her official capacity as Secretary for
the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00912-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2019). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis.

The Florida Department of Children and Families is a state agency
of Florida. Its headquarters are in Room 202 in Building 1 of the
1317 Winewood Boulevard complex in Tallahassee.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          Rachel Siegel-McLaughlin, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC.
          1000 N Ashley Dr Ste 640
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (850) 488-9071
          E-mail: amandah@disabilityrightsflorida.org

               - and -

          Marc Cohan, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & ECONOMIC JUSTICE, INC.
          275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967

               - and -

          Katherine DeBriere, Esq.
          FLORIDA HEALTH JUSTICE PROJECT
          126 West Adams Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 356-8371
          Facsimile: (904) 356-8780
          E-mail: debriere@floridahealthjusticeproject.org

FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks Initial Approval of Georgia Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended July 13, 2019, that Chris B. Hendley has
filed an unopposed motion for (1) preliminary approval of the class
action settlement; (2) certification of the settlement class; and
(3) approval of notice to the settlement class.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.
Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain
senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott
Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley
complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.

Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired
company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2 016.
The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with
applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance
exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory
action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act.

The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest,
and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert
fees.

On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action
captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the
"consolidated securities action"), appointed Walter Matthews as
lead plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the
putative class.  

On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead
plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated securities
action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia.  

Lead plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general allegations
and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley complaints.

On March 13, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit which was granted in part and denied in part on March 23,
2018. The court dismissed certain allegedly false or misleading
statements as nonactionable under federal securities laws, and will
allow others to proceed to fact discovery.  

On July 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. The defendants filed their memorandum of law in
opposition to class certification on October 5, 2018. The court
scheduled a hearing on the class certification motion for February
28, 2019.  

On May 10, 2019, the parties filed a notice of settlement informing
the court that a settlement in principle of the case had been
reached.  

On July 12, 2019, lead plaintiff and Plaintiff Chris B. Hendley
filed an unopposed motion for (1) preliminary approval of the class
action settlement; (2) certification of the settlement class; and
(3) approval of notice to the settlement class.  

Also on July 12, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which (along with its
exhibits) sets forth in detail the terms of the settlement and the
releases of all claims against the Defendants.  

The Stipulation and settlement remain subject to court approval.
The settlement in principle is for $21.0 million and is expected to
be paid by the company’s insurance provider.  

Flowers Foods said, "This amount is recorded on the company's
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of July 13, 2019 as an
other current asset due from the insurer and an other accrued
liability due for the settlement in principle.  Recording this
transaction resulted in no impact to the company's Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Income because the expense for the
settlement in principle was offset by the expected recovery from
the insurer."

Flowers Foods, Inc., incorporated on October 19, 2000, is a
producer and marketer of packaged bakery products. The Company
operates in two segments: direct-store-delivery segment (DSD
Segment) and warehouse delivery segment (Warehouse Segment). The
company is based in Thomasville, Georgia.


FORD MOTOR: Napier Sues Over False Fuel Economy Ratings
-------------------------------------------------------
MARK NAPIER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-12437-SFC (D. N.J., Aug. 19, 2019) is a class action
brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a class of current
and former owners or lessees of model year 2017 through 2019 Ford
automobiles, including the 2017 Ford Expedition, that were marketed
and sold with false fuel economy ratings (collectively "Class
Vehicles").

Ford represented to Plaintiff and Class members that the Class
Vehicles had achieved specific miles-per-gallon ("MPG") estimates.
Ford concealed that its Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
fuel economy testing was inadequate, which resulted in Class
Vehicles with overstated MPG fuel economy ratings. On February 21,
2019, Ford announced that EPA fuel economy testing results were not
accurate and, as a result, that the Class Vehicles' fuel economy
are overstated.

Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a
laboratory using a series of tests specified by federal law.
Manufacturers test their own vehicles and report the results to the
EPA. Ford's fuel economy testing was insufficient and flawed and
not in compliance with federal regulations. Ford's testing resulted
in inaccurate fuel economy ratings. Ford itself has admitted that
its U.S. emissions certification process is a cause for concern.
Ford knew or should have known facts indicating the inaccuracies in
its promised MPG of the Class Vehicles. EPA numbers are a vital
tool that enable consumers to compare vehicles when making leasing
or purchasing decisions. Specifically, the EPA fuel economy ratings
are one of the most important factors in new-car buyers' purchase
decisions. Ford's advertising statements related to its EPA fuel
economy ratings materially misrepresented the fuel economy numbers
that the required testing would have actually produced. Ford's
misstatements as to the EPA fuel economy ratings are material.

Ford recklessly or consciously disregarded facts that indicated the
fuel economy ratings for the Class Vehicles were erroneous and
overstated. Ford's warranties, advertising, and other statements
about the promised MPG of the Class Vehicles are false and
misleading. Ford has not corrected its misstatements and omissions
or disclosed to consumers the true fuel economy ratings of the
Class Vehicles. Through its misrepresentations, Ford induced
Plaintiff and Class members to purchase or lease the Class
Vehicles, which do not perform as represented. Plaintiff and Class
members paid more for their Class Vehicles than they otherwise
would have and have had to pay higher fuel costs than they would
have paid had the Class Vehicles performed as advertised. Plaintiff
and Class members would not have purchased or leased the Class
Vehicles had they known the truth of Defendant's fraudulent scheme,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Mark Napier purchased a new 2017 Ford Expedition from
Holman Ford Lincoln, an authorized Ford dealership, located in
Maple Shade, New Jersey on or about September 22, 2016.

Ford engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, and leasing
automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
     Bruce D. Greenberg
     Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 623-3000
     Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
     Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
            bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
            scruzhodge@litedepalma.com


FOREIGN AUTO IMPORT: Santos Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
SILVIO SANTOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated. Plaintiff, v. FOREIGN AUTO IMPORT, INC. (d/b/a Toyota of
Watertown), and MURRAY S. PATKIN, Defendants, Case No. 19-2407
(Commonwealth of Mass., Aug. 15, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint
against Defendants seeking damages based on the failure to pay
wages.

The Defendants' company-wide compensation structure for salespeople
was based on a 100% commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week
was based on a percentage of the profit Defendants earned for each
sale made by the employee. To the extent an employee's pay for any
given week fell below a certain threshold. Defendants would advance
the employee a "draw" on future commissions. Pursuant to this pay
policy, draws and commissions were ostensibly applied to hours
worked over 40 hours per week, and to hours worked on Sundays and
holidays. Defendants did not pay any additional compensation for
such work beyond the draws and commissions.

Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a at least one week during
the class period. Plaintiff worked on at least 15. one Sunday or
covered holiday during the class period. The Defendants did not
base their pay to Plaintiff, or members of the Class, on the amount
of overtime hours, or the amount of hours worked on Sundays and
holidays, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for Defendants from approximately
June 2013 through March 2019.

Defendants operate a car dealership located in Watertown.
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Gardner, Esq.
     Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
     GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C
     One State Street, Fourth Floor
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: 617-390-7570
     Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


GEORGIA: Community Supervision Department Faces ADA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Georgia Department
of Community Supervision and Commissioner Michael Nail for alleged
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
The case is captioned Brandon Cobb et al, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Georgia Department of
Community Supervision et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-03285-WMR (N.D. Ga.,
July 19, 2019). This civil rights-related lawsuit is assigned to
Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, the Department of Community
Supervision is responsible for the supervision of about 180,000
adult felony offenders and Class A and Class and Class A and Class
B designated juvenile offenders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kosha Shonyetta Tucker, Esq.
     ACLU OF GEORGIA - ATL
     1100 Spring Street, NW
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Telephone: (770) 303-8111
     Facsimile: (770) 303-0060
     E-mail: ktucker@acluga.org

             - and -

     Sean Young, Esq.
     ACLU OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION
     1100 Spring St. NW Suite 640
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Telephone: (770) 303-8111
     Facsimile: (770) 303-0060
     E-mail: syoung@acluga.org

GILEAD SCIENCES: California Product Liability Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a product liability class action suit in California.

The company has been named as a defendant in one class action
lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread,
Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. Plaintiffs allege that
Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild caused them to
suffer kidney and/or bone injuries.

The lawsuits, all of which are pending in state or federal court in
California, involve hundreds of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various
grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves in these actions.

Gilead Sciences said, "While we believe these cases are without
merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are
successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant
monetary damages."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Gilead Sciences, Inc., a research-based biopharmaceutical company,
discovers, develops, and commercializes medicines in the areas of
unmet medical needs in the United States, Europe, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Foster City, California.


GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Meds Price-Rigging Related Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend litigation over alleged rigging of the price of HIV
medication.

The company along with JT, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Johnson
& Johnson, Inc., have been named as defendants in a class action
lawsuit filed in 2019 related to various drugs used to treat HIV,
including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy.

Plaintiffs allege that the company (and the other defendants)
engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection
laws.

The lawsuit, a consolidated action pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to
bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of end-payor
purchasers. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief,
and other relief.

Gilead Sciences said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in
this action.  While we believe this action is without merit, we
cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful
in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary
damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief."

Gilead Sciences, Inc., a research-based biopharmaceutical company,
discovers, develops, and commercializes medicines in the areas of
unmet medical needs in the United States, Europe, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Foster City, California.


GMS CONCRETE: Stanley et al Seek Overtime Pay for Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------
Atamai Stanley, Julio Carrera, and Victor Garcia, filing
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. GMS Concrete Specialists, Inc., an Arizona
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04977-ESW (D. Ariz.,
Aug. 16, 2019), seeks overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act.

Carrera was hired in October 2017 as a laborer for Defendant.
Carrera drove crews to various job sites where he and the crew
would prepare the foundation and 13 framing for another crew to
pour concrete.

Garcia was hired in February 2018 as a laborer for Defendant. Upon
his hire, Garcia agreed to be paid at an hourly rate above minimum
wage for all services performed for Defendant.

Stanley was hired in September 2018 as a laborer for Defendant.  He
worked on crews to pour and finish concrete for residential
foundations. Upon his hire, Stanley agreed to be paid at an hourly
rate above minimum wage for all services performed for Defendant.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers typically
worked for Defendant 26 days per week for the entire duration of
their employment, typically working at least 40 hours each week,
but Defendants did not pay them overtime wages.

GMS is in the construction industry specializing in residential and
light commercial concrete.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

         Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
         Nathaniel J. Hill, Esq.
         Grant S. Cragun, Esq.
         JACKSON WHITE LAW
         40 North Center Street, Suite 200
         Mesa, AR 85201
         Telephone No.: (480) 464-1111
         Facsimile No.: (480) 464-5692
         E-mail: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com
                 mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com
                 nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com
                 gcragun@jacksonwhitelaw.com

GOHEALTH LLC: Dawson Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against GoHealth, LLC,
Dignity - GoHealth Urgent Care Management, LLC, and GoHealth Urgent
Care Management, LLC for alleged violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is
captioned BRIDGETTE DAWSON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GO HEALTH, LLC, a limited
liability company; DIGNITY - GOHEALTH URGENT CARE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-577790 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., July 19, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the California Labor Code violations and engaged in unfair
business practices. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to
pay minimum and regular rate wages, failed to pay overtime wages,
failed to provide meal periods, failed to authorize and permit rest
periods, failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and
meal periods, failed to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements.

GoHealth, LLC and Dignity - GoHealth Urgent Care Management, LLC
are Delaware corporations that have not designated a principal
business office in California according to its latest Statement of
Information on file with the California Secretary of State. These
companies maintain branches, facilities, and offices from which
they transact business in a variety of locations in San Francisco
County. They offer health insurance products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kane Moon, Esq.
     Allen Feghali, Esq.
     MOON & YANG, APC
     1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 232-3128
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
     E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
             allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com

GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Ongoing in 2010 Employees Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that arbitration is
proceeding in a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by three female former
employees.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have systematically
discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation,
promotion and performance evaluations.

The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims. On
September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing.

On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that
they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and
declaratory relief.

On April 12, 2019, Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion to compel
arbitration as to certain class members who are parties to
agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to
arbitrate employment-related disputes, and plaintiffs filed a
motion challenging the enforceability of arbitration agreements
executed after the filing of the class action.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss a third consolidated amended complaint in the
Commodities-Related Litigation remains pending.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint on July 21, 2017.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GPB CAPITAL: Girard Sharp, Gibbs Law File Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Girard Sharp LLP and Gibbs Law Group LLP have filed a class action
lawsuit in federal court in New York on behalf of certain GPB
investors. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to require GPB to
provide accurate financial statements to investors. GPB and certain
of its executives have been accused of accounting irregularities
and other improprieties in their operations. GPB investors
interested in joining the GPB class action lawsuit are encouraged
to contact us.

GPB has reportedly raised more than $1.8 billion in investor funds
across its various private placement offerings. In 2018, GPB
announced that it was suspending redemptions to focus on accounting
and financial reporting issues. GPB later announced that its
auditor resigned "due to perceived risks…that fell outside of
their internal risk tolerance parameters." More recently, in
February 2019, GPB informed investors that authorities raided GPB
Capital's New York offices unannounced and collected material.
According to media reports, regulators and legal authorities have
launched investigations into GPB, including the FBI, SEC, and
FINRA.

"By bringing this lawsuit requiring GPB to immediately produce the
financial statements they promised investors, our clients are
giving GPB one last chance to come clean before they sue for more
comprehensive relief," said Daniel Girard of Girard Sharp.

"Investors deserve to have complete, truthful information about
what is happening with their money; anything less than that is
unacceptable," said David Stein of Gibbs Law Group.

GPB investors who would like to speak privately with an investment
fraud attorney to learn more about our GPB class action lawsuit
should visit our website or contact our securities team directly at
(800) 808-5294.

                        About Girard Sharp

Girard Sharp LLP is a national litigation firm representing
plaintiffs in lawsuits in state and federal courts. The firm serves
individuals in cases involving serious violations of investor
protection and unfair competition laws. Girard Sharp has been named
a Tier 1 law firm for plaintiffs' mass tort and class-action
litigation by the U.S. News & World Report. Our attorneys have been
named among the Best Lawyers in America (c) for six consecutive
years, award winners with National Law Journal Elite Trial Lawyers
and have been recognized among the Top Plaintiff Lawyers in
California.

                      About Gibbs Law Group

Gibbs Law Group has recovered more than a billion dollars on behalf
of its clients against some of the largest corporations in the
world. Its attorneys have represented thousands of clients in class
actions and investment fraud cases around the country. Gibbs Law
Group's attorneys have been named among the Best Lawyers in America
(c), the Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California, Top Class Action
Attorneys Under 40, and Consumer Protection MVPs. [GN]


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: IPO-Related Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Greenlane Holdings, Inc., is facing a purported class action
lawsuit related to its registration statement for its initial
public offering, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

On August 2, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, officers and
directors of the Company, and the underwriters related to the
Company's initial public offering.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company's registration statement related to
its initial public offering contained untrue statements of material
fact and omitted to state material facts necessary to make the
statements in the registration statement not misleading, in
violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended.

Greenlane Holdings said, "At this time, the class is not certified,
and the Company cannot estimate the amount of damages (if any)
being sought by the plaintiffs.  The Company can provide no
assurances as to the outcome of this litigation.  However, the
Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself."

Greenlane Holdings, Inc. distributes consumption accessories and
vaporization products to wholesale and retail customers in the
United States and Canada. The company offers vaporizers and parts,
cleaning products, grinders and storage containers, pipes, rolling
papers, and customized lines of specialty packaging. It also
operates e-commerce Websites, such as VaporNation.com and
VapeWorld.com. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered
in Boca Raton, Florida.


GURTLER CHEMICALS: Kirby Sues Over BIPA Violaton
------------------------------------------------
DAVID KIRBY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. GURTLER CHEMICALS, INC., Case No.
2019CH09395 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., Aug. 14, 2019) is a
Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against Defendant to stop Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and the
proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards - which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised - biometrics are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA.

Specifically, Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA
because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues not
to: a. Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
biometrics were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as
required by BIPA; b. Provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs and
other similarly-situated individuals' biometrics, as required by
BIPA; c. Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their biometrics, as required by BIPA; and d. Obtain consent from
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or
otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/ or biometric
information to a third party as required by BIPA.

Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant at in Illinois. While doing so,
Plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois.

Gurtler Chemicals, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with places of
business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


HELIX ENERGY: Dismissal of Discrimination Suit Partly Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FABIAN SHAW, COLLINS KWABENA, and DALE DUCLION,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. H-18-3200 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, recommended that the Defendant's Motion for
Dismissal of Class Action Claim and Certain Other Claims in
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint be granted in
part.

The case is an employment discrimination case.  The three named
Plaintiffs, Shaw, Kwabena, and Duclion were all employed by Helix
and worked in various positions on two of Helix's drilling rigs,
the Q5000 and the Q4000.  Shaw and Kwabena are Black and Duclion is
White.  Shaw and Kwabena allege that they were passed over for
various promotions in favor of less qualified White employees and
were subjected to a racially hostile work environment.  Duclion
alleges that he was retaliated against, and others were promoted
over him, after he complained to management about the racial
discrimination he witnessed as against Shaw.  

Plaintiffs Shaw and Kwabena allege disparate treatment race
discrimination claims against Helix under Title VII (count three),
a hostile work environment claim against Helix under Title VII
(count five), and a disparate impact race discrimination claim
against Helix under Title VII (count six).  Shaw, Kwabena and
Duclion also allege retaliation claims against Helix under both
Section 1981 and Title VII (count two and count four).  

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege, on behalf on themselves and a class
of all black persons employed or formerly employed by the Defendant
in the United States at any time from 2015 to the present, who have
been, or continue to be, or may be in the future, adversely
affected by the Defendant's racially discriminatory employment
policies and practices claims of race discrimination under Section
1981 (count one).

Helix, in its Motion to Dismiss, seeks: (1) dismissal of the class
action claim(s); (2) dismissal, on limitations grounds, of Shaw's
Title VII claims and discrimination allegations that pre-date Nov.
18, 2016, Shaw's Section 1981 failure to promote claims and
allegations that predate Sept. 10, 2016, Kwabena's Title VII claims
and discrimination allegations that pre-date Nov. 15, 2016, and
Kwabena's Section 1981 failure to promote claims and allegations
that pre-date Sept. 10, 2016; and (3) dismissal of Shaw and
Kwabena's disparate impact claims under Title VII.


Magistrate Judge Stacy granted the Defendant's Motion to Strike
page 2 of Shaw's Declaration.  The three bullet-pointed paragraphs
on page 2 of Shaw's Declaration do contain hearsay, and are
therefore not admissible as evidence in support of Rule 23's
numerosity/commonality requirement.  She also finds that because
the case is appreciably no different than Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes, and because neither the allegations in the First Amended
Class Action Complaint nor any evidence in the record supports Rule
23's commonality and numerosity requirements, the class action
allegations should be dismissed.

On limitations grounds, Helix seeks dismissal of any claim by Shaw
under Title VII that pre-dates Nov. 18, 2016, any claim by Kwabena
under Title VII that predates Nov. 15, 2016, and any failure to
promote claim by either Shaw and Kwabena under Section 1981 that
predates Sept. 10, 2016.  Helix also seeks dismissal of the Section
1981 disparate impact claims on the basis that disparate impact
claims cannot be brought under Section 1981 and dismissal of the
Title VII disparate impact claims on the basis that they were not
included in any of the Plaintiffs' EEOC Complaints.

The Judge finds that it need not be decided whether a two year or
four-year statute of limitations applies to Shaw's and Kwabena's
failure to promote and/or unequal pay claims.  That is because the
race discrimination "count" alleged against Helix in the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint (count three) was
alleged by Shaw and Kwabena under Title VII -- not Section 1981.
So, inasmuch as both sides argue about whether Shaw's and Kwabena's
race discrimination claims under Section 1981 are, or should be
considered, time-barred, there is no race discrimination count
alleged against Helix under Section 1981.

Finally, Magistrate finds that a prima facie case of disparate
impact discrimination requires a showing of (1) a facially neutral
policy; (2) that, in fact, has a disproportionately adverse effect
on a protected class.  While Shaw and Kwabena predominantly
complained in the EEOC charges about not being promoted, and being
subjected to harassment and racially derogatory comments, Kwabena
included an allegation that he had "noticed the rate of promotion
for blacks and white differed significantly.  White employees
climbed the rig hierarchy at a much faster pace than black rig
employees."  This allegation, notwithstanding the absence of any
allegations of a facially neutral company policy, relates to how
Helix's Black employees were treated, company-wide, as opposed to
its White employees, in terms of promotions.  Because a disparate
impact claim could "reasonably be expected to grow out of " those
allegations, the disparate impact claim(s)7 should not be dismissed
on exhaustion grounds.

Based on the foregoing, and the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have
not alleged a plausible class action claim, and that some of
Plaintiff Shaw's and Kwabena's Title VII race discrimination
allegations are time-barred, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
the Defendant's Motion for Dismissal of Class Action Claim and
Certain Other Claims in Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint be granted in part; and that the following claims be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) for failure to
state a claim: (1) the Plaintiffs' class action claim; (2) Shaw's
disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims under Title
VII based on conduct that occurred prior to Nov. 18, 2016; and (3)
Kwabena's disparate treatment claims and hostile work environment
claims under Title VII based on conduct that occurred prior to Nov.
15, 2016.

The Clerk will file the instrument and provide a copy to all the
counsel and unrepresented parties of record.  Within 14 days after
being served with a copy, any party may file written objections
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C).  Failure to file
objections within such period will bar an aggrieved party from
attacking factual findings on appeal.  Moreover, absent plain
error, failure to file objections within the 14-day period bars an
aggrieved party from attacking conclusions of law on appeal.  The
original of any written objections will be filed with the United
States District Clerk.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Memorandum and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/QyXFV5 from
Leagle.com.

Fabian Shaw, Collins Kwabena & Dale Duclion, Plaintiffs,
represented by Gabrielle Ogechukwu Ilochi, TB Robinson Law Group,
PLLC & Terrence B. Robinson -- TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com -- TB
Robinson Law Group, PLLC.

Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc., Defendant, represented by James
R. Staley -- jim.staley@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al.


HI-TECH PROPERTY: Taylor Files Class Suit in Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hi-Tech Property
Maintenance. The case is styled as Jacqueline Caloun-Smith Taylor,
Plaintiff v. James Walker Whitlock, on behalf of himself,
unidentifiable Primary Stalker and other similarly situated named
and or unnamed stalkers, representatives and others supporting
their stalking efforts, Henry Whitlock Brother to James Walker
Whitlock, Ned Whitlock Uncle to James, Henry, Helen and Terry
Whitlock, ex-military/McGuire, Terry Whitlock Pierce Sister of
James and Helen Whitlock, Helen Geneva Whitlock Sister of James
Whitlock, Barbara Wooldridge also known as: Honey Bee also known
as: "Hundra Bee" Cousin to Whitlock/Taylors, Gang Leader for the
women, Primary Stalker also known as: Woodrow Woodson also known
as: John Appersom Primary Gang Leader alleged husband of Barbara
Wooldridge, Clairece Wooldridge Sister of Barbara Wooldridge,
Pamela Jean Taylor Whitlock Ex Sister-In-Law, wife to Henry
Whitlock, Shirelle Hope Taylor Whitlock Daughter of Pamela Jean
Whitlock, Justine Greene Alleged ex-girlfriend of Plaintiff's
ex-husband and friend to his family, V-Tech employees, V-Tech
employees, Hi Tech Property Maintenance employees, all black
African American males (approx. 5 to 6 homeless, at times living in
vehicles rear unloading area of Midlothian Kroger) and Parking Lot
Cleaners providing service over last ten years to Midlothian, VA
Walmart, Martin Stores, Kroger Grocery Stores, Charter Colony
Shopping Center WaWa, Chesterfield Towne Center Mall, etc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00606-JAG (E.D. Va., Aug. 20, 2019).

The case type is stated as Civil Rights Act: Other.

Hi-Tech Property Maintenance is a domestic Property Maintenance
Company in Melbourne that specialises in Timber Door and Window
Replacements.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



HOME PROPERTIES: 3d Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Jarzyna
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Appellant, v. HOME PROPERTIES,
L.P.; FAIR COLLECTIONS AND OUTSOURCING, INC, Case No. 18-3012 (3d
Cir.), Judge Thomas L. Ambro of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment
against Jarzyna on all his claims against Home.

The case began as putative class action by Jarzyna on behalf of
more than 10,000 current and former tenants of residential
apartment complexes operated by Home Properties.  Over seven years
of litigation, it was whittled down to a one-claim landlord-tenant
dispute over a single month's rent somewhere in the range of $900.
There were many battles along the way, resulting in motions for
sanctions, the appointment of a special master, and the issuance of
more than fifteen substantive opinions by the District Court.

Jarzyna filed the action in 2010 seeking to represent a class of
tenants who have rented apartments from Home in Pennsylvania and
elsewhere.  Broadly, he alleged that Home overcharged him and other
tenants for rent, utility fees, and certain penalties when their
leases were converted from annual leases into month-to-month
rentals, as commonly occurred for tenants who did not timely renew
their annual leases. He also alleged that Home and its agent,
co-defendant Fair Collection and Outsourcing Inc., violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), by demanding payment
for the overcharged amounts.

The complaint alleged six claims.  Against both Home and Fair
Collection, it alleged: (1) violation of the FDCPA, (2) violation
of the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Ac, (3)
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, (4) civil conspiracy, and (5) unjust enrichment.
Against Home, it also alleged (6) violation of Pennsylvania's
Landlord Tenant Act.  Home filed a counterclaim against Jarzyna for
rent in arrears.  The District Court had jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1331 for the federal claims, and it exercised
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a) for the
accompanying state-law claims.

Among other things, in its many opinions, the Court (i) granted
summary judgment in favor of Jarzyna on his FDCPA claim against
Fair Collection, (ii) granted summary judgment in favor of Home and
Fair Collection on all of Jarzyna's other claims, (iii) denied
Jarzyna's motion to certify a class on the FDCPA claim against Fair
Collection because Jarzyna failed to show that members of the class
were ascertainable, (iv) denied certain motions by Jarzyna to
compel additional discovery, and (v) denied various motions for
sanctions stemming from hostility between counsel of record.

Jarzyna and Fair Collection settled the FDCPA claim a few months
before trial, so the only claim remaining was Home's counterclaim
against Jarzyna.  After a bench trial, the Court entered judgment
in favor of Home for $888 on the counterclaim.

Jarzyna raises four issues on appeal.  He contends the Court (1)
should not have granted summary judgment in favor of Home on
Jarzyna's Fair Credit Act, Consumer Protection Law, and Landlord
Tenant Act claims; (2) should have reconsidered those
summary-judgment rulings when, later in the case, Home produced
supplemental discovery that Jarzyna says would have supported the
defeated claims; (3) should have granted various motions that
Jarzyna filed based on Home's alleged foot-dragging in discovery;
and (4) should have entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of
Jarzyna on Home's counterclaim.  He asks the Court to reinstate his
claims against Home under the Fair Credit Act, the Consumer
Protection Law, and the Landlord Tenant Act.  He also requests that
the Court vacates the $888 judgment in favor of Home on its
counterclaim.

Judge Ambro agrees with the District Court: the record evidence
shows as a matter of law that, at the end of his tenancy, Jarzyna
owed more in rent than the amount of his remaining security
deposit.  Thus there is no ascertainable loss, or any withholding
of a security deposit, to sustain Jarzyna's claims under the Fair
Credit Act, Consumer Protection Law, and Landlord Tenant Act.  So
the Judge affirms summary judgment on those claims.

Jarzyna appeals the District Court's denial of three discovery
motions: (1) for additional discovery, (2) for sanctions, and (3)
to reallocate fees paid to the special master brought in by the
District Court to assist with discovery.  

The Judge finds that Jarzyna gives the Court no reason to believe
the depositions would have revealed evidence that could save his
claims from summary judgment for failing to show ascertainable
loss.  He also finds that Jarzyna was not entitled to sanctions
under Rule 37(a) because he did not first attempt in good faith to
obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action.  Lastly,
he finds that on appeal Jarzyna vaguely contends that allocation
was improper, but he does not identify any specific error in the
special master's analysis, nor does he develop the context of the
allocation sufficiently for us to discern whether it was an abuse
of discretion.  Whether the Court says he waived the argument or
merely did not substantiate it, the result is the same; the Judge
affirms the allocation.

Finally, the Judge finds that even taking all Jarzyna's factual
assertions as true, he concludes that Jarzyna owed at least $643.79
($888 minus $244.21) when his tenancy ended.  Accordingly, although
the Judge cannot sustain the District Court's entry of judgment for
$888, he remands with instructions to enter judgment in favor of
Home in the amount of $643.79 plus applicable interest and fees as
determined by the District Court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Ambro affirmed in all respects save
one: he concludes the trial record does not support a judgment of
$888 in favor of Home; he instead remanded for entry of a judgment
in the lesser amount of $643.79 plus applicable interest and fees
as determined by the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/5NI8TF from Leagle.com.


INOGEN INC: Fabbri and Friedland Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the class action suits initiated by
William Fabbri and Steven Friedland have been consolidated and is
now entitled, Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR.

On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against
Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities.

On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially
similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court.

On May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two
lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund
Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel.

On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 8, 217 and May 7, 2019.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total
addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had
misstated the basis for its calculation of the total addressable
market; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the
strong sales acumen of its salesforce, rather than to deceptive
sales practices; (iii) the growth in Inogen's domestic
business-to-business sales to home medical equipment providers was
inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales;
and (iv) Inogen's decision to focus on sales over rentals of
portable oxygen concentrators harmed its ability to serve the
Medicare market.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as
the court deems proper.

Inogen said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
these allegations."

Inogen, Inc., a medical technology company, primarily develops,
manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators for
patients, physicians and other clinicians, and third-party payors
in the United States and internationally. Inogen, Inc. was founded
in 2001 and is headquartered in Goleta, California.


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Zhang Investor Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Intelligent Systems Corporation
(NYSE American: INS) from January 23, 2019 through May 29, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Intelligent Systems investors under the federal
securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=intelligent-systems-corporation&id=1932
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free
at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Defendant Petit, the "financial expert" on Intelligent
Systems' Audit Committee engaged in accounting fraud as the CEO of
MiMedx Group, Inc.; (2) Intelligent Systems' CEO, Defendant
Strange, engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions with
Defendant Petit and others and had an undisclosed personal
relationship with the Company's auditor; (3) Intelligent Systems
had its employees set up or take control of shell companies in Asia
so they could partake in undisclosed related-party transactions for
the purpose of either fabricating revenue for the Company and/or
siphoning money out of the Company; and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about Intelligent Systems' business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


IRS: Failed to Act on FOIA Request, Southern Poverty Says
---------------------------------------------------------
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER and NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER,
the Plaintiffs, vs. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02501 (D. Colo., Aug. 19, 2019), seeks mandatory and
other appropriate relief to compel the processing of Plaintiff's
May 7, 2019 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and the
prompt disclosure and release of records from Defendant.

Under the guise of an IRS search warrant for financial records, on
April 5, 2018, the IRS, in conjunction with several federal and
state law enforcement agencies, conducted what was then the single
largest worksite immigration raid in the last decade, at
Southeastern Provision, LLC, located at 1617 Helton Road, Bean
Station, Tennessee.

Dozens of agents descended on the Plant and detained and arrested
more than 100 Latino workers without probable cause. White workers
were subject to no such treatment. Public interest surrounding this
worksite raid was intense and widespread. And with the more recent
and larger immigration raids in Mississippi, public interest in
conduct by government agents during these worksite raids is even
stronger.

Moreover, the actions of the federal and state officers that day
resulted in a federal damages class action being filed on behalf
of all of the workers subjected to violations of their
constitutional rights during the Raid against dozens of named
federal officers and the United States of America.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiffs submitted the Request to the IRS,
seeking specific information related to the Raid, including
photographs of the worksite, the enforcement action review form,
and the names of the IRS agents involved in the planning and
execution of the warrant and the Raid. The Request specifically
stated: "Please note that Requesters do not seek tax returns or tax
return information, as defined under 26 U.S.C. section 6103, of any
third party, including those of Mr. James Brantley," and
specifically excluded from the Request communications "concerning
tax returns or tax return information." Further, the Request asked
the IRS to redact any tax return information should otherwise
responsive records contain such information.

In response, the IRS claims that the information sought in the
Request is "tax return information" and protected by Section 6103.
Moreover, the IRS claims that it cannot even acknowledge whether
responsive records exist because doing so would "identify whether
an investigation was conducted."

But the public already knows that an investigation was conducted.
The Department of Justice broadcast that fact in a September 12,
2018 press release announcing that Mr. Brantley had "pleaded guilty
to tax fraud," among other crimes. Mr. Brantley has since been
publicly sentenced for his crimes. Any "investigation" is both
public and complete.

Hiding behind Section 6103, the IRS refuses to even process
Plaintiffs' Request and has failed to produce a single record.
Faced with the IRS's refusal to acknowledge the existence of
records or to adequately consider the Request, Plaintiffs are
forced to file this action. The IRS must process the Request, as
submitted, and produce the records requested or explain why the
records cannot be produced, the lawsuit says.

NILC is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization that engages in
policy analysis, advocacy, education, and litigation to promote and
advance the rights of low-income immigrants and their families.

The IRS is the bureau of the Department of the Treasury responsible
for the collection of taxes and the enforcement of tax laws, and it
is an agency of the United States.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Donald P. Salzman, Esq.
          Arthur R. Bookout, Esq.
          Jason S. Levin, Esq.
          PROBONO LAW
          1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: 202-371-7983
          Facsimile: 202-661-9063
          E-mail: Donald.Salzman@probonolaw.com
                  Eben.Colby@probonolaw.com
                  Jason.Levin@probonolaw.com

IZEA WORLDWIDE: Approval Hearing for Perez Accord Set for Sept. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing for the settlement in the class action
suit entitled, Julian Perez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al., has been scheduled
for September 23, 2019, according to IZEA Worldwide, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

A securities class action lawsuit, Julian Perez, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al.,
case number 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS was instituted April 4, 2018 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf
of certain purchasers of its common stock.  The plaintiffs seek to
recover damages for investors under federal securities laws.  The
Company has estimated and accrued a potential loss of US$500,000
representing its deductible on the associated insurance coverage.

On April 15, 2019, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that
contained settlement terms as agreed upon by the parties to the
Perez class action lawsuit.  The motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement was granted on May 7, 2019.

According to the terms of the settlement, as agreed upon by the
parties, IZEA's insurer deposited US$800,000 into the settlement
fund and the Company paid the remainder of its previously accrued
insurance deductible of US$400,000 into escrow to be used as
settlement funds, inclusive of lead plaintiff awards and lead
counsel fees.

The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court,
and the Court has scheduled a hearing for September 23, 2019.  Upon
final approval by the Court, the settlement will require that the
Perez lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice.

In the event that the Court does not approve the settlement, the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims based upon
the Company's belief that the claims are without merit.

IZEA Worldwide, Inc. creates and operates online marketplaces that
connect marketers and content creators. IZEA Worldwide, Inc. was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oklahoma Wins $572MM Judgment in Opioid Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thad Balkman on August 26, 2019, ruled in favor of the State
of Oklahoma in the nation's first opioid trial, requiring defendant
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen to pay $572,102,028
into a fund that will be used to remedy the devastating public
nuisance in Oklahoma.

Nix Patterson, LLP represented Oklahoma throughout the litigation
and at trial along with co-counsel Whitten Burrage. Judge Balkman
presided over the seven-week trial at the Cleveland County
courthouse in Norman, Oklahoma, from May 28 to July 15, 2019.

Delivering his ruling from the courthouse in Norman, Judge Balkman
found J&J's false and deceptive marketing of opioids caused the
opioid crisis in Oklahoma, which he found constituted a "public
nuisance" under Oklahoma law. Brad Beckworth, Esq. --
bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- a partner at Nix Patterson and one of the
lead trial lawyers for the State, said of the judgment: "We could
not be more satisfied with this result for the State of Oklahoma
and its citizens. We have seen firsthand how J&J's false marketing
of opioids as non-addictive and safe for everyday pain ravaged
lives and destroyed families in Oklahoma. Judge Balkman's decision
requiring J&J to fund the State's abatement plan means Oklahomans
can get the treatment they need and new cases of opioid addiction
can be prevented."

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter and his team filed this case
in June of 2017. "Taking this case all the way to trial and doing
it swiftly was important to General Hunter and the legal team," Mr.
Beckworth said. "Oklahomans deserved justice, and in this case
justice included showing the world in broad daylight exactly how
J&J created this crisis in Oklahoma and profited hugely from doing
so. Very few people were even aware of J&J's dominant role in the
opioid epidemic. We felt a sense of duty to expose J&J as one of
the biggest participants in the industry, and one of the companies
that profited the most from the opioid crisis."

The evidence showed that J&J not only manufactured its own opioids,
but also was the number-one supplier of base opioid ingredients
used in nearly every opioid drug on the market. J&J's subsidiaries,
Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids, grew the opium poppies and
synthesized the ingredients that supplied the active pharmaceutical
and raw ingredients for more than 60% of the most prescribed
opioids in Oklahoma. These J&J subsidiaries sold the base opioid
ingredients to other drug manufacturers, like Purdue Pharma, Teva
Pharmaceuticals, Endo, and many others. J&J also invented a mutant
poppy that enabled the growth of oxycodone to meet the anticipated
increased demand for Purdue Pharma's deadly blockbuster drug,
OxyContin.

Mr. Beckworth explained, "Without J&J, the volume of opioids that
flooded Oklahoma and the country would not have been possible.
OxyContin would not have been possible. J&J was the kingpin of the
whole industry."  The evidence at trial showed that J&J had a
strong financial interest in the success of the opioid industry as
a whole, and engaged in persistent unbranded marketing and
behind-the-scenes lobbying to promote the liberal use of opioids.
The profits from Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids's sales of opioid
ingredients to other manufacturers went straight to J&J's bottom
line. Meanwhile, J&J's subsidiary, Janssen, manufactured and
promoted its own branded synthetic opioids, Duragesic, Nucynta, and
Ultram, claiming they too were safe and effective for everyday pain
and non-addictive. However, Janssen's drugs were just as dangerous
and addictive as other opioids. In fact, Duragesic contains
fentanyl, a now-infamous opioid that is 100 times more potent than
morphine. Because of this, Janssen's medical advisory board
specifically advised Janssen not to market Duragesic as safe and
non-addictive, but Janssen rejected this advice.

Rather than accept responsibility for its part in the opioid
crisis, at trial J&J tried to blame the State of Oklahoma, its
medical schools, its physicians, and even patients who became
addicted to opioids after a minor injury. Mr. Beckworth said: "It's
astonishing that J&J would lie to everyone about the safety and
efficacy of opioids for decades and then try to blame people for
believing their lies. J&J's wackadoodle claim that everyone is at
fault for this crisis except J&J was one of the most recalcitrant
things I've ever seen in a courtroom. Fortunately, Judge Balkman
saw through J&J's blame game."

Mr. Beckworth also expressed gratitude for General Hunter and the
litigation team he put together. "We commend General Hunter for his
courageous leadership throughout this litigation. We are also
grateful for our co-counsel, Mike Burrage, Reggie Whitten, and all
the great lawyers at Whitten Burrage. We were incredibly lucky to
have the team we had."

The funds for the State's abatement plan, which was developed by
Oklahoma State Commissioner of Mental Health Terri White, will
provide essential, life-saving services to help reverse the
devastating opioid crisis in Oklahoma. Since 2000, more than 6,000
Oklahomans have lost their lives due to unintentional
prescription-opioid overdose. Between 1994 and 2006, unintentional
opioid overdose rates increased seven-fold in Oklahoma. Since 2011,
more people have died from unintentional opioid overdose in
Oklahoma than from motor vehicle accidents. There were
approximately 10,999 non-fatal hospitalizations from 2000 to 2015
because of prescription opioid overdose. And nearly 500 babies born
to SoonerCare members had a diagnosis of Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome (NAS) in 2017 alone. The State's abatement plan --
presented at trial -- is aimed at reducing these appalling
statistics.

The State requested an abatement plan that includes six major
categories: (1) addiction prevention; treatment and recovery
services; (2) overdose prevention and response; (3) medical
education; (4) NAS assessment and treatment; (5) data surveillance,
reporting and research; and (6) law enforcement and regulatory
services and programs to address the opioid crisis.

Oklahoma's unique public nuisance law allowed General Hunter to
pursue claims against J&J for creating the opioid crisis, and to
require J&J to fund a plan to fix -- or abate -- the crisis. While
public nuisance laws vary from state to state, Oklahoma's law
historically has been used to abate widespread harms affecting the
public health and safety of individuals and society as a whole
since it was passed more than 100 years ago.

J&J may choose to appeal Judge Balkman's ruling, a process that
could last several years. In that event, J&J would first appeal the
judgment to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which could either review
the case or send it to an intermediate appellate court in Oklahoma.
If the Oklahoma appellate courts affirm the judgment, J&J would
then have the option of asking the United States Supreme Court to
review the case.

Prior to trial, Nix Patterson negotiated historic settlements with
defendants Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals on behalf of the
State. Under the terms of the Purdue settlement, Purdue paid a
total of $270 million, the majority of which will be used to fund a
world- class, national opioid-addiction treatment and education
center at Oklahoma State University medical school in Tulsa,
Oklahoma. Teva, a manufacturer of generic opioids, paid $85 million
to settle the State's claims.

Mr. Beckworth served as Nix Patterson's lead attorney on the case.
Other Nix Patterson attorneys involved in the litigation include
partners, Lisa Baldwin, Esq. -- lbaldwin@nixlaw.com -- Jeff
Angelovich, Esq. -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- and Mike Angelovich,
Esq. -- mangelovich@nixlaw.com -- and associates Trey Duck, Esq. --
tduck@nixlaw.com -- Drew Pate, Esq. -- dpate@nixlaw.com -- Winn
Cutler, Esq. -- winncutler@nixlaw.com -- Ross Leonoudakis, Esq. --
rossl@nixlaw.com -- Cody Hill, Esq. -- codyhill@nixlaw.com -- James
Warner, Esq., Brooke Churchman, Esq. -- bchurchman@nixlaw.com --
and Nathan Hall, Esq -- nhall@nixlaw.com Over the course of the
litigation, Nix Patterson attorneys and their co-counsel took 122
depositions, defended 83 depositions, briefed over 100 motions,
argued 35 hearings, combed through 85 million pages of documents
produced by defendants, and produced over 5 million pages of
documents from 13 Oklahoma state agencies.


JUST ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 30, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf Just Energy Group Inc.
Investors ("Just Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE: JE) investors who
purchased securities between November 9, 2017 and July 23, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com

On July 23, 2019, the Company disclosed that it had "identified
customer enrolment and non-payment issues, primarily in Texas, over
the past 12 months" and that, as a result, it expected an
impairment charge of CAD $45 to $50 million to its Texas
residential accounts receivable.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.66 per share, more
than 15%, to close at $3.72 per share on July 23, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company experienced customer enrollment and
nonpayment issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur an impairment charge to its accounts
receivable; (3) that, as a result, the Company lacked adequate
internal control over its financial reporting; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Just Energy securities
during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than
September 30, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

         Contacts
         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel.: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM [GN]


JUUL LABS: Faces Potential Class Action Over E-Cigarettes
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
federal lawsuit alleges the makers of Juul electronic cigarettes
intentionally have marketed their products to children.

"They make it look cool and sleek," said Brett Preston, Esq. one of
the attorneys who filed the case Aug. 13 in federal court in
Charleston. "It's all over the place. There is no denying it's a
major problem. The CDC already has called it an epidemic."

The 65-page potential class action, filed by a mother only
identified as R.E. on behalf of her child identified as P.K.E.,
details the history of electronic cigarettes and how the companies
allegedly target youth. It lists Juul Labs Inc., Altria Group Inc.
and Philip Morris USA Inc. as defendants. P.K.E. is described as a
16-year-old addicted to Juul e-cigarettes.

Preston said these companies use many of the same strategies that
cigarette companies did for years to promote their products to
teens and pre-teens.

"It's exactly like that," Preston told The West Virginia Record.
"It's the same playbook. The issues here have been around for a
long time. Combustible cigarette companies wrote a whole playbook
on how to keep a steady supply of customers. It all was sealed in
the landmark tobacco litigation, but it was reopened. These guys
admittedly went and got that playbook."

In addition to Preston, fellow Preston & Salango attorneys Ben
Salango, Esq. and Dan R. Snuffer, Esq. are listed as plaintiffs
attorneys as well as Scott Segal, Esq. and C. Edward Amos II, Esq.
from The Segal Law Firm.

Preston said there are several similar lawsuits across the
country.

"There are a lot of lawsuits filed already, but it's just the tip
of the iceberg of what's to come," Preston said. "I'm aware of two
classes filed -- one in California, one in Florida -- seeking to
cover all users. Kids, new smokers, those trying to kick addiction.
That seems like a tall order to me. I don't know if you're serving
anybody very well if you're trying to serve everybody.

"The bottom line is that we don't want our kids getting addicted to
nicotine. We're just trying to get these out of the hands of all of
our kids' friends."

Preston said Juul's recently has started a marketing strategy
targeted at youth cessation.

"They point to that and say they're not trying to market toward
kids," Preston told The Record. "One, they just put it in place.
Two, there are ads marketing to kids. So, are they doing this
because they're a benevolent company or did their crisis control
people tell them to get ahead of the issue?

"I mean, kids already are developing a deceptive personality
because of these. They're trying to sneak around and hide it from
their parents.

"The bottom line is I don't think very many people are going to
come down and say this lawsuit is a bad idea. I've never seen
anything this unhealthy and this bad spread so fast. It's the
biggest wave of addiction I've ever seen."

The complaint mirrors Preston's comments.

"Because Juul's marketing turned the Juul into a status symbol for
teens, the acute nicotine addiction a Juul fosters is frequently
reinforced by the idea – which Juul spread – that Juul use is
what 'cool' popular kids do in high school," the lawsuit states.
"As a result, the medical community has found itself ill-equipped
to develop a treatment for Juul-addicted youth. …

"The teen vaping epidemic was by design, not by accident."

The complaint claims Juul's purpose is to foster and maintain
nicotine addiction, saying Juul manipulates its nicotine
formulation to make it attractive to youth and non-smokers and more
potent and addictive than cigarettes.

It also alleges Juul has deceptively marketed its e-cigarettes as
an alternative to cigarettes "when it is more potent and more
addictive than cigarettes." Also, it claims Juul falsely represents
that Juul pods contain the nicotine equivalent of a pack of
cigarettes "when they actually deliver a particularly potent dose
of nicotine."

The complaint says Juul intends to continue to deceive consumers
about nicotine content despite its recent "Switch" campaign
suggesting Juul is a smoking cessation device and that it is a
cost-effective alternative to smoking.

It says Juul relies on viral marketing campaigns to draw new young
users, including flavors, free giveaways at live social events and
the paid use of third-party "influencers."

"Defendants use fraudulent and deceptive youth marketing business
practices," the complaint states. "They exploit themes that
resonate with teenagers while falsely denying doing so."

The five-count complaint accuses the defendants of negligent and
reckless misconduct, tort of outrage, unjust enrichment, fraud and
statute violations. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
actual damages, restitution, statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorney fees and expenses, court costs and
other relief.

In addition, it seeks to prohibit and restrain defendants from
altering, deleting or destroying records, an order enjoining them
from engaging in unlawful conduct and practices and an order
certifying the potential class.

"JUUL Labs is committed to eliminating combustible cigarettes, the
number one cause of preventable death in the world," Ted Kwong, a
spokesman for Juul, told The Record. "Our product is intended to be
a viable alternative for current adult smokers only. We do not want
non-nicotine users, especially youth, to ever try our product.

Regarding this lawsuit, Kwong said, "To the extent this case
alleges otherwise, it is without merit and we will defend our
mission throughout this process." [GN]


K12 INC: Court Grants Final Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------
K12 Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that a court has granted the plaintiffs'
motion for final settlement approval in the case, In Re K12 Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:16-cv-04069-PJH.  

On July 20 and September 15, 2016, two securities class action
lawsuits captioned Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc., et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-04069, and Gil Tuinenburg v. K12 Inc., et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-05305, respectively were filed against the Company, two of
its officers and one of its former officers in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 6, 2016, the Court consolidated the cases and
recaptioned the matter as In Re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 4:16-cv-04069-PJH.  

On August 30, 2017, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
alleging false or misleading statements and omissions related to
Scantron results and the quality and effectiveness of K12's
academic services and offerings.

On September 5, 2018, and as a result of a Court ordered mediation,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
remaining claim concerning disclosure of a notice of non-automatic
renewal of a managed school contract.

Although the company believes that the remaining claim in this
matter lacked merit, the company agreed to settle the case to avoid
continued distraction and management time, and the company's
insurance carriers agreed to pay $3.5 million into a settlement
fund for the alleged class and attorneys' fees and costs.  

The Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement on
February 14, 2019, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for final
settlement approval on July 10, 2019.

K12 Inc., a technology-based education company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides online curriculum, software systems, and
educational services to facilitate individualized learning for
students primarily in kindergarten through 12th grade in the United
States and internationally. K12 Inc. was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.


KEANE GROUP: Bushansky Balks at Merger Deal with C&J Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KEANE GROUP, INC., ROBERT W.
DRUMMOND, JAMES C. STEWART, MARC G.R. EDWARDS, LUCAS N. BATZER,
DALE M. DUSTERHOFT, CHRISTIAN A. GARCIA, LISA A. GRAY, GARY M.
HALVERSON, SHAWN KEANE, ELMER D. REED, LENARD B. TESSLER, and SCOTT
WILLE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02924 (S.D., Tex., Aug. 7,
2019), is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and all other public stockholders of Keane Group, Inc.
against Keane and the members of Keane's Board of Directors for
their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-9

On June 17, 2019, Keane and C&J issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated June 16, 2019. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each issued and outstanding share of C&J common stock
will be converted into the right to receive 1.6149 shares of Keane
common stock. Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Keane
and C&J stockholders will each own approximately 50% of the
combined company.

On July 16, 2019, Keane and C&J filed a joint proxy
statement/prospectus on Form S-4 with the SEC. The Registration
Statement, which recommends that Keane stockholders vote in favor
of the issuance of Keane common stock pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) C&J's and Keane's financial
projections, relied upon by the Company's and the special committee
of the Board's respective financial advisors, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. and Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, in their financial
analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by
Citi and Lazard; (iii) the background of the Proposed transaction;
and (iv) potential conflicts of interest faced by Lazard.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as Keane stockholders need such information in order to make a
fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Stock
Issuance.

In short, unless remedied, Keane public stockholders will be forced
to make a voting decision on the Stock Issuance without full
disclosure of all material information concerning the Stock
Issuance being provided to them, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          212 W. Spring Valley Road
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Telephone: (214) 696-1100
          Facsimile: (214) 740-0112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

KFORCE INC: Smith Sues over Credit Background Check
---------------------------------------------------
MAURCUS SMITH, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KFORCE INC., A Florida
profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02068 (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 19, 2019), contends that Defendant unlawfully obtain and
use a consumer report for employment purpose, pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

The Defendant is a national staffing firm that provides staffing
services to thousands of clients. The Defendant routinely obtains
and uses information in consumer reports to conduct background
checks on applicants and employees.

According to the complaint, the Defendant offered Plaintiff
employment, through which he would be employed by Plaintiff and
assigned to JP Morgan Chase. The Defendant obtained Plaintiff's
consumer report for employment purposes.

The Defendant offered Plaintiff employment. The Plaintiff attended
orientation, fully expecting to be hired by Defendant and assigned
to JP Morgan Chase.

The Defendant rescinded the offer of employment based upon the
contents of Plaintiff's consumer report. However, never provided
Plaintiff with notice, a copy of the report or a summary of his
rights before rescinding the offer, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant's failure to provide pre-adverse action notice
injured Plaintiff in that he was deprived of his ability to contest
or discuss with Defendant the content of his consumer report.

The Defendant rescinded Plaintiff offer of employment based in
whole or in part on the content of his consumer report but never
provided him with pre-adverse action notice or a copy of his
consumer report or summary of rights, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, No. 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813 223-5505
          Facsimile: 813 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

KIMBALL TIREY: Court Dismisses Scott from FDCA Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed in its entirety with prejudice,
the case, PATRICE SCOTT, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN, LLP;
And Does 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00697-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), as to Plaintiff Scott.  The
dismissal is without prejudice as to the class-action allegations
and to other members of the putative alleged class.

The parties have filed stipulation of dismissal.  Each party to
bear its own costs and fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4XyhqG from Leagle.com.

Patrice Scott, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Paul Rundquist --
andrew@rundquistlaw.com -- Law Office of Andrew P Rundquist.

Kimball, Tirey and St. John LLP, Defendant, represented by Adrienne
Rosene Kelly -- adrienne.kelly@kts-law.com -- Kimball Tirey and St
John LLP.


LINKWELL CORP: Nov. 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 16-cv-62506 (FAM)(LFL)

JULIE SIEGMUND and SETH LIPNER, as
Co-Successor Trustees of THE FREDERICK
SIEGMUND LINKWELL CORP. CLAIMS
LIVING TRUST DATED JULY 31, 2018,

Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

XUELIAN BIAN, WEI GUAN,
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, SHANGHAI YINLING
ASSET MANAGEMENT CO., LTD., LEADING
FIRST CAPITAL LIMITED and LEADING
WORLD CORPORATION,

Defendants.


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

This notice is for all persons and entities who owned one or more
shares of Linkwell Corporation common stock as of the close of
business on September 19, 2014, who did not vote to approve the
merger between Linkwell Corporation and Leading World Corporation,
whose shares were canceled as a result of the merger, and were
damaged thereby.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a
hearing will be held on November 19, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Federico A. Moreno at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, United States Courthouse,
Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. Building, Courtroom 13-3, 400 North Miami
Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128, to determine: (i) whether the
proposed Settlement1 of the Class Claims in the above-captioned
action ("Action") for consideration in the amount of $6,000,000.00
in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iii) whether proposed Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 35
percent of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation
expenses of not more than $450,000.00, and an award to The
Frederick Siegmund Linkwell Corp. Claims Living Trust dated July
31, 2018 ("The Siegmund Trust") of no more than $15,000.00 should
be approved; and (iv) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice and the release specified and described in the
Stipulation should be granted.

If you owned Linkwell Corporation ("Linkwell") common stock as of
the close of business on September 19, 2014, did not vote to
approve the merger between Linkwell and Leading World Corporation
(the "Merger"), and your Linkwell common stock was canceled as a
result of the Merger, your rights may be affected by this proposed
Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you
may possess relating to your ownership of Linkwell common stock. If
you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Fairness
Hearing ("Notice of Pendency") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing
to Linkwell Corp. Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91211, Seattle, WA 98111-9311,
or at: www.linkwellcorpshareholderlitigationsettlement.com. If you
are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no
later than February 4, 2020, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in this Action whether or not you
make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement, you must submit
to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is
received no later than October 21, 2019, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice of Pendency.  ALL CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE
NOT VALIDLY REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT WILL BE BOUND
BY ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ACTION PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or proposed
Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and a Service Award to The Siegmund Trust
must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of
Pendency and filed and served no later than October 29, 2019, to
each of the following:


Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
United States Courthouse
Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. Building
400 North Miami Avenue
Miami, FL 33128

PROPOSED CLASS COUNSEL
Charles J. Hecht, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR XUELIAN BIAN AND WEI GUAN
Alice K. Sum, Esq.
Fowler White Burnett, P.A.
Brickell Arch
1395 Brickell Avenue, 14th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131

COUNSEL FOR SIDLEY
Stephen Warren, Esq.
Holland & Knight LLP
701 Brickell Avenue
Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact the
Claims Administrator or Proposed Class Counsel at the addresses
listed above or go to the website at:
www.linkwellcorpshareholderlitigationsettlement.com.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated:  August 2, 2019

1 All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated as of May 1, 2019
(the "Stipulation"). [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Nerddeer et al. Seek Minimum Wages & Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Los
Angeles, et al. The case is a collective and representative class
action to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensations,
wages for missed meal periods, restitution, actual damages,
statutory and civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorneys fees
and costs owed to Plaintiff and all other paralegals, legal
assistants, legal secretaries, and/or similarly situated job
positions during the applicable liability period pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the California Labor Code.

The Defendants required or knowingly permitted Plaintiff and the
RAK Staff Employees without paying them minimum wages for all hours
worked as required by both federal and California law. The
Defendants also required or knowingly permitted Plaintiff and the
RAK Staff Employees to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or
40 hours per week without paying properly calculated overtime
compensation for all such overtime hours.

The case is captioned as NERDDEER, LLC; DAVID SCOTT BAYER, II, LLC;
and DAVID SCOTT BAYER, II, individually, on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, and as taxpayers' and putative class
representative, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES;
MICHAEL N. FEVER, in~his individual and professional capacity as
City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles; JONATHAN CRISTALL, in
his individual and professional capacity as Assistant City Attorney
for the City of Los Angeles; KIMBERLY ERICKSON, in her individual
and professional capacity as Assistant City Attorney for the City
of Los Angeles; MARY CLARE MOLIDOR, in her individual and
professional capacity as Chief, Criminal and Special Litigation
Branch of the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney; POLICE CHIEF
MICHAEL MOORS, individually and in his official capacity; THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; LOS ANGELES POLICE DETECTIVE II LARSEN
SERIAL NO 33038; in his individual and professional capacities; THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, in his professional
capacity; THE OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY; JACKIE
LACEY, in her individual and professional capacity as District
Attorney for the County of Los Angeles; DAVID PFAFF, in his
individual and professional capacity as Assistant District Attorney
for the County of Los Angeles; DAVID FIELDS, a Judge of the
California Superior Court, in his individual and professional
capacities; MICHAEL E. PASTOR, a Judge of the California Superior
Court, in his individual and professional capacities; RUSS AUGUST &
KABAT, a California Professional Corporation; LARRY CRAIG RUS S, an
individual; MARC AARON FENSTER, an individual; BONNIE ANDERSON, an
individual; JACKSON LEWIS, P.C., a Pennsylvania Corporation; JOEL
P. KELLY, an individual; IRA BENJAMIN KATZ, IRA BENJAMIN KATZ, a
Professional Corporation; KAISER PERMANENTS INTERNATIONAL, a
California Corporation; THE ENTITY AND ISSUER certificate authority
with. root CA Serial Number 3D E8 6F F4 50 AC 93 94 43 75 34 FA BB
22 AB FO bearing SHA-25 6 fingerprint 5 8 84 A l 14 69 E2 SB C8 8D
57 CO EO 51 OS D 1 22 43 4A BS 61 4E 1 F 48 8C 87 D9 34 OE 53 17 A3
2C and SHA-1 fingerprint 37 53 93 36 C8 7D 8E 82 46 8C B6 A4 C3 2F
2B 09 7E 95 9D 6A; THE SUBJECT with certificate serial number SB BB
81 DD 00 Ol 00 00 02 51 bearing SHA-256 fingerprint D2 CD E4 EO ED
C9 85 CS 60 85 43 38 13 A2 SA OC SB 28 4E 78 C7 B9 91 9D 48 21 90
99 91 B4 DC 3F and SHA-1 fingerprint E2 E2 AS 63 BF FS C 1 95 29 97
21 4C F4 DB C 1 00 AO AE 61 EF for the issuer with Root Certificate
Authority Serial Number 3D E8 6F F4 50 AC 93 94 43 75 34 FA BB 22
AB FO bearing SHA-256 fingerprint 58 84 Al 14 69 E2 SB C8 8D 57
COEO51 OS D1 22434ABS 61 4E 1F 48 8C 87 D9 34 OE 53 17 A3 2C and
SHA-1 fingerprint 37 53 93 36 C87D8E82468CB6A4C32F2B 09 7E 95 9D
6A; THE SUBJECT with certificate Serial Number 51 AS BB AO 00 O1 00
00 02 34, SHA-256 fingerprint 7F 49 CA 73 BO F4 BA E2 09 4A 28 17
98 11 F 1 48 52 2E 12 CO 38 BD 3B FC 29 CD D2 11 10 BB OB A9 and
SHA-1 fingerprint EO FF 60 06 95 14 EF AS FS 6E D4 CF A8 3A DS E7
7F AF B8 D3 for the issuer with Root Certificate Authority Serial
Number Serial Number 3D E8 6F F4 50 AC 93 94 43 75 34 FA BB 22 AB
FO bearing SHA-256 fingerprint 58 84 Al 14 69 E2 SB C8 8D 57 CO EO
51 OS D1 22 43 4A BS 61 4E 1F 48 8C 87 D9340E53 17A32CandSHA-1
fingerprint 3 7 5 93 3 6 C 8 7D 8E 82 46 8C B6 A4 C3 2F 2B 09 7E 95
9D 6A; THE SUBJECT with certificate serial number 51 94 SC F9 00 O1
00 00 02 32 bearing SHA-2.56 fingerprint A7 4B 78 48 45 6C 2C 06 70
A4 10 AD 50 78 SB 7A 14 73 46 98 CC C9 40 E2 A3 B 1 78 86 CA SC BO
85 SHA-1  for the issuer with Root Certificate Authority Serial
Number 3D E8 6F F4 50 AC 93 94 43 75 34 FA BB 22 AB FO bearing
SHA-256 fingerprint 58.84 Al 14 69 E2 SB C8 8D 57 CO EO 51 OS D1 22
43 4A BS 61 4E 1F 48 8C 87 D9340E53 17A32CandSHA-1 fingerprint 37
53 93 36 C8 7D 8E 82 46 8C B6 A4 C3 2F 2B 09 7E 95 9D 6A and DOES
O1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants; and RUSS AUGUST & KABAT,
a California Professional Corporation; DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants sued as potential co-Plaintiffs, Case No.
2:19-cv-06884-DSF-SS (C.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Scott Bayer, II
          NERDDEER, LLC
          2105 Crenshaw Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90016
          Telephone: 323 847-9262
          E-mail: scott.bayer2@gmail.com
          www.gofundme.com/stop-securities-fraud

LYFT INC: Hit With Class Suit Over Driver Employment Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Gordon, writing for Jalopnik, reports that Lyft is facing
another class-action lawsuit taking direct aim at alleged
widespread and intentional misclassification of drivers as
independent contractors.

The suit was filed in the Northern District of California by
representatives of Lyft driver Donald Brunner Jr. of Burbank who
has driven full-time for Lyft since March 2016. By the suit's
estimation, Brunner Jr. has worked 42 to 70 hours per week on the
platform ever since, logging 500 to 1,100 miles per week. The suit
alleges he and other drivers were deprived of reimbursed expenses,
overtime, and minimum wage, among other rights employees have.

This is hardly the first time Lyft has been sued over the driver
classification issue. Another case, Whitson v. Lyft, was settled in
June for undisclosed terms. Back in 2017, Lyft settled a similar
lawsuit for $27 million, although it took almost four years to be
settled and very much left the question of driver classification
unanswered; it was also settled before the landmark California
Supreme Court ruling in the Dynamex decision that opened the door
to gig economy misclassification lawsuits. Norton v. Lyft, which
was filed in Dynamex's wake, is still winding its way through the
courts. For its part, Uber settled a case earlier this year for $20
million six years after it was filed.

One of the issues that gave Uber tremendous leverage in that
settlement was the fact that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that the arbitration clauses drivers must agree to in
order to work on the platform -- directing legal matters to an
arbitration proceeding rather than the courts -- prohibited class
actions.

But Brunner's representatives argue that Lyft waived its right to
arbitration by not paying the necessary fees to the American
Arbitration Association, which, according to the complaint, Lyft
agrees to do in its terms of service. The AAA requires the fees be
paid in advance of any hearing, so Lyft's alleged refusal to pay it
essentially blocked the arbitration process.

Otherwise, the suit makes pretty standard arguments regarding
driver classification:

   * Lyft's business is entirely dependent on drivers to provide
its service;

   * Drivers lack meaningful degrees of business autonomy,
including setting their own rates or building business
relationships with passengers for future services;

   * Lyft unilaterally controls the terms of employment and
requires drivers to maintain high ride "acceptance rates," meaning
drivers do not have the freedom to cancel rides at their discretion
without being punished by Lyft;

   * By giving drivers only 15 seconds to accept rides, it
prohibits drivers from being engaged in any other meaningful
activity even when not providing any services on the Lyft platform

   * If previous cases are any indication, it will take years for
any type of resolution, assuming there is one at all.

We reached out to Lyft asking if they have any comment on the
lawsuit and will update this story if we hear anything back. [GN]


MACY'S WEST: Faces Brito ADA Suit in District of Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC. a/k/a MACYS
CALIFORNIA INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02242-WJM-KMT (D.
Colo., Aug. 7, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had difficulty accessing
the Defendant's facility, as there are designated accessible
parking spaces located too far from an accessible route to the
facility. The Plaintiff also had difficulty exiting his vehicle, as
designated accessible parking spaces are located on an excessive
slope in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Macy's West Stores, Inc. operates department stores. The Company
offers clothing, footwear, bedding, furniture, jewelry, beauty
products, and house wares. Macy's West Stores serves customers
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
           GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
           1600 Broadway, Suite 1600
           Denver, CO 80202
           Telephone: (720) 996-3500
           Facsimile: (720) 381-0515
           E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
                   aquezada@lawgmp.com
                   bvirues@lawgmp.com
                   ddun@lawgmp.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Minor Leaguers Move Forward With Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maury Brown, writing for Forbes, reports that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed a legal victory to minor
league baseball players seeking wages that would exceed the minimum
by ruling that the players may proceed as a class action lawsuit.

The case was brought forth in 2014 by 45 former players against
Major League Baseball, then MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, and a
majority of the 30 franchises including the Kansas City Royals, San
Francisco Giants, Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago Cubs, New York
Yankees. "The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the
district court's orders certifying a class and a collective action
for wage-and-hour claims brought by minor league baseball players
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law," wrote the
Honorable Judge Paez for the majority. The case is Aaron Senne et
al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.

The ruling is significant against the backdrop of the Save
America's Pastime Act that was part of the $1.3 trillion omnibus
bill President Trump signed into law in 2018. That altered the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to add the following:

[A]ny employee employed to play baseball who is compensated
pursuant to a contract that provides for a weekly salary for
services performed during the league's championship season (but not
on spring training or the off season) at a rate that is not less
than a weekly salary equal to the minimum wage under section 6(a)
for a workweek of 40 hours, irrespective of the number of hours the
employee devotes to baseball related activities.

America's Pastime Act

Prior to Trump signing it into law, FLSA exempted bona fide
executive, administrative, professional and outside sales
employees, as well as some within the computer industry, from both
minimum wage and overtime pay protections.

But the case the players have brought forth seek to argue the case
around state laws. The appeals ruling on August 16 overturned part
of the prior district court ruling that "certified a California
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure but denied
certification for Arizona and Florida"

"It's a great result for minor league players everywhere," said
Robert King, Esq., the Korein Tillery, LLC, partner who argued the
case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the
plaintiffs. "It was a determined effort by our team at Korein
Tillery and our co-counsel at Pearson, Simon & Warshaw. We look
forward to prosecuting the case to trial."

Levi Weaver of The Athletic extensively covered wages for minor
league players. In his report he noted that even with slight
raises, short season Single-A players saw wages increase from
"~$2,750 to $2,900 in annual pay". He also showed the following pay
structure:

AAA: $2,150/month in their first year, $2,400/month in second year,
$2,700/month in third, for a 5.5-month season.

(Total: ~$11,825-$14,850 per year.)

AA: $1,700/month, goes up by $100/month in additional years.

(Total: approx. $9,350+ per year)

High-A, Low-A: $1,100-1,500/month, goes up by $50 per year in
additional years.

(Total: approx. $6,050-8,400 per year)

Dominican Summer League: $300 per month, $900 per year for the
three-month season. (These players are exempt from the raise, since
their labor takes place in another country, and is not subject to
U.S. minimum-wage laws.)

Major League Baseball is considering raising salaries for players
in the minors, as well as improved living conditions and
transportation that would be part of the new agreement between
Minor League and Major League Baseball, who pays the players'
wages. The current agreement, called the Professional Baseball
Agreement (PBA) is set to expire in 2020. [GN]


MASONITE INT'L: Bid to Dismiss E.D. Va. Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Masonite International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the consolidated purported class action direct purchaser
and end-purchaser complaints filed against the company and
JELD-WEN, Inc., is pending.

Masonite said, "With respect to the consolidated purported class
action direct purchaser and end-purchaser complaints filed against
us and JELD-WEN, Inc., the judge denied our motion to transfer the
proceedings from the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond
Division."

On March 1, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss all of the
claims in both of these complaints. A hearing on the company's
motion to dismiss was held on June 11, 2019, and as of August 6,
2019, the court had not ruled on the motion.

Discovery in the case is proceeding.

Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and
distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction
and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential
and non-residential building construction markets worldwide.
Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is
headquartered in Tampa, Florida.

MDL 2262: NCUA's Bid for Exclusion from OTC Class Deals Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust
Litigation. This Document Applies to: National Credit Union
Administration Board v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al. OTC
Plaintiff Action, Case Nos. 11 MD 2262 (NRB), 13 Civ. 7394, 11 Civ.
5450 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied National Credit
Union Administration Board ("NCUA")'s motion for exclusion from the
Over-the-Counter ("OTC") class settlements and the OTC Litigation
Class.

On March 9, 2016, the OTC Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval
of their settlement with Barclays Bank plc, which was granted on
Dec. 21, 2016.  They additionally moved for and obtained
preliminary approval of their settlements with Citibank, N.A. and
Citigroup Inc. on Aug. 31, 2017, and HSBC Bank plc and Deutsche
Bank Aktiengesellschaft on April 5, 2018.

Every settlement class included all persons or entities that
purchased in the United States, directly from a Defendant (or a
Defendant's subsidiaries or affiliates), a U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based
Instrument and that owned the U.S. Dollar LIBOR-Based Instrument
any time during the period August 2007 through May 2010.  The Court
set the following deadlines for requesting exclusion from the
settlements: Oct. 9, 2017 (Barclays); Jan. 2, 2018 (Citi); and
Sept. 28, 2018 (Deutsche Bank and HSBC).

On Feb. 28, 2018, the Court also granted in part the OTC
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a Rule
23(b)(3) class, which included the Plaintiffs asserting antitrust
claims against Bank of America, N.A. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
("Non-Settling Defendants").  The notice program for the Deutsche
Bank and HSBC settlements included information regarding the
Litigation Class.  In approving the proposed joint notice program,
the Court used the same deadline -- Sept. 28, 2018 -- for
requesting exclusion from the Litigation Class.

The Court entered final judgments approving the Barclays and Citi
settlements on Aug. 1, 2018, and the Deutsche Bank and HSBC
settlements on Oct. 25, 2018.  In entering the final judgments, the
Court found that the notice programs for the four settlements
satisfied due process and Rule 23 because the programs incorporated
"myriad methods" and constituted "the best notice practicable under
the circumstances.  The notice programs clearly informed the class
members of their right to opt out and the consequences of failing
to do so.  In addition, notifications of 61 separate ECF entries
related to the four settlements and the Litigation Class were sent
to the counsel of record for all parties.

From the earliest filing on the ECF system referencing the first
settlement to the entry of the last of the final judgments, 960
days passed.  During that span of 960 days, there were over 60
entries on the docket sheet directly related to the settlements and
the Litigation Class; multiple notices were filed in the financial
press, both online and in print; and direct mail was sent to
plaintiffs.  This is the context in which the Court considers the
NCUA's pending motion to be excused for its failure to timely seek
exclusion from the four settlements and the Litigation Class.

Despite these extensive, multi-faceted notice programs, NCUA -- who
filed a complaint on Sept. 23, 2013, asserting LIBOR-related claims
on behalf of five liquidated Credit Unions -- claims that it
received none of the notices regarding the four settlements or the
Litigation Class.  According to NCUA, it first learned about its
failure to opt out on Oct. 30, 2018 -- after the Court entered the
final judgments approving the four settlements and their notice
programs -- when the counsel for Barclays contacted NCUA's counsel
regarding the Barclays settlement.

In support of its motion for exclusion from the four settlements
and the Litigation Class, NCUA argues that its failure to opt out
formally was due to "excusable neglect" under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(B), and that formal opt-out was not necessary because it
"affirmatively expressed its intent to opt out of the [s]ettlements
and the Litigation Class" by actively litigating its individual
claims against the Defendants.

Judge Buchwald finds that the mailing record provided by the lead
counsel for the OTC Plaintiffs shows that three mailed notices were
delivered to Catalyst Corporate Credit Union, the successor to one
of the named Plaintiffs in NCUA's individual action, Southwest
Corporate Credit Union.  NCUA admits that Catalyst is the successor
to Southwest Corporate, thus making applicable the case law holding
that found the failure of the internal procedures of the plaintiffs
to see that the notice reached the proper person to be no excuse.
Moreover, due process notice requirements are not dependent on
whether all the potential class members physically receive mailed
notice.  The burden does not fall on the Settling Defendants to
ensure that NCUA actually received the mailed notices, and a
failure in NCUA's internal system to properly process the notices
is entirely NCUA's fault and responsibility.

Even if the Court assumes arguendo, and contrary to the record,
that NCUA did not receive any mailed notice, NCUA received legally
sufficient notice of the settlements and the Litigation Class
through the publication notice programs approved by the Court.  The
settlement administrator utilized a rigorous publication notice
program spanning major national newspapers and magazines and
Internet advertising across various targeted websites.  As Settling
Defendants underscore, NCUA is chargeable with the information that
was included in the ECF notifications its counsel received.  Thus,
NCUA can be held accountable for the acts and omissions of its
attorneys.  Therefore, the Judge finds that NCUA has not
demonstrated any sufficient showing of "excusable neglect."

NCUA's argument that it affirmatively expressed its intent to opt
out of the four settlements and the Litigation Class by actively
litigating its individual action fares no better.  As a threshold
matter, most courts hold that pending parallel litigation is not
sufficient to communicate an opt-out request.  NCUA also cites
several cases in which courts allowed plaintiffs who did not
satisfy specific opt-out requirements to be excluded because they
reasonably indicated their desired exclusion.  However, unlike
NCUA, the plaintiffs in those cases did not utterly fail to notify
any relevant party about their desired exclusion after receiving
multiple settlement notices.   NCUA's reliance on those cases is
nothing more than a futile attempt to fit a square peg into a round
hole.  The Judge thus rejects NCUA's argument that it affirmatively
expressed its desired exclusion by actively litigating its
individual action.

Judge Buchwald concludes that NCUA failed to exclude itself from
the four settlements and the Litigation Class despite direct mail,
multiple notices in the financial press, and dozens of ECF
notifications.  To find on these facts that NCUA has demonstrated a
showing of "excusable neglect" or affirmatively expressed its
intent to opt out by "actively litigating" its individual action
would effectively write those legal standards out of the law.  She
declines to do so.  For these reasons, she denide NCUA's motion for
exclusion from the OTC class settlements and the OTC Litigation
Class.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate
the pending motions listed at docket entries 2838 in 11 MD 2262 and
279 in 13 CV 7394.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pJenT4 from Leagle.com.

FTC Capital GMBH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell, Esq. --
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP, Daniel Hume, Esq. --
dhume@kmllp.com -- David E. Kovel, Esq. -- dkovel@kmllp.com --
Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq. -- lpederson@kmllp.com -- and Surya
Palaniappan, Esq. -- spalaniappan@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin
McNeela
-- amcneela@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney
LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff -- mdavidoff@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, P.C, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel
Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya
Palaniappan,
Kirby McInerney LLP & Thomas W. Elrod -- telrod@kmllp.com -- Kirby
McInerney, LLP.

FTC Futures Fund SICAV, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin
McNeela, Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E
Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson, Kirby
McInerney
LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney, LLP.

Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia, Plaintiff, represented
by
Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, Darren J. Robbins --
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, David W. Mitchell --
davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Lucas F. Olts -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
&
Dowd LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard
Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP.

City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David
E
Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, George E. Barrett, Barrette, Johnsn &
Parsley, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Timothy L. Miles, Barrett, Johnston & Parsley.

Ravan Investments, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume,
Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Jay W.
Eisenhofer, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John D. Radice, Radice Law
Firm, P.C., Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman and Criden, Michael E.
Criden, Hanzman, Criden, Korge, Chaykin, Ponce & Heise, P.A.,
Peter
Anthony Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Roger W Kirby, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Plaintiff, represented by
Arun
Srinivas Subramanian, Susman Godfrey LLP, Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney
LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Drew D Hansen, Susman
Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Ivan Smith, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Glenn Charles Bridgman, Susman Godfrey LLP, Hilary K
Scherrer, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Hilary Kathleen Scherrer,
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC,Joel Davidow, Kile Goekjian
Reed & McManus Pllc, Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca,
LLP, Karen Oshman, Susman Godfrey LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman
Godfrey, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Mary Kathryn Sammons, Susman
Godfrey
LLP, Matthew Berry, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Michael C.
Kelso, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice,Nathaniel C. Giddings,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Ralph Johnson Bunche, III, Hausfeld,
LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Seth D. Ard, Susman Godfrey LLP,
Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, William P. Butterfield,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice & William Christopher Carmody, Susman
Godfrey LLP.

Richard Hershey & Jeffrey Laydon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby
McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Douglas Mason
Chalmers, Douglas M. Chalmers P.C., Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Robert F. Coleman, Coleman Law
Firm,
pro hac vice, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steve R. Jakubowski,
Coleman Law Firm, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP & Vincent
Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C..

Bank of America Corporation is represented by Paul Steel Mishkin,
Esq. -- paul.mishkin@davispolk.com -- Arthur J. Burke, Esq. --
arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- Julie Saranow Epley, Esq. --
julie.epley@davispolk.com -- Neal Alan Potischman, Esq. --
neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- and Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Esq.
-- robert.wise@davispolk.com -- DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP.

Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by David R. Boyd, Esq.
--
dboyd@bsfllp.com -- and Jonathan David Schiller, Esq. -- BOIES
SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, David Harold Braff, Esq. --
braffd@sullcrom.com -- Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. --
scottj@sullcrom.com -- and Yvonne Susan Quinn, Esq. --
quinny@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP.

Citibank NA, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Wiseman , Covington
& Burling, LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington &
Burling LLP, David Marx, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jonathan
James Gimblett, Covington & Burling, LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Jacob
Altschul, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Frank
Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Tammy Albarran, Covington
and Burling LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas A. Isaacson, Covington &
Burling, LLP, pro hac vice.

Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by Aidan John Synnott,
Paul Weiss, Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Paul Weiss, Moses Silverman,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Abram Jeremy Ellis,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Hallie Suzanne Goldblatt, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
&
Garrison LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Abram Jeremy
Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Alan Craig Turner, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Alexander Nuo Li, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Eamonn
Wesley
Campbell , Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Francis John Acott ,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Jonathan Thomas Menitove, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Lawrence H. Heftman, Schiff Hardin LLP,
Matthew Charles Crowl, Schiff Hardin LLP, Patrick E. King, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher Gluckow, Simpson Thacher
&
Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P.
& Sarah Emily Phillips, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Lloyds Banking Group PLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Andrew
Fleming, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Kevin Timothy Baumann, Hogan
ovells
US LLP, Lisa Jean Fried, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Marc Joel
Gottridge,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Megan Polly Davis, Flemming Zulack
Williamson
Zauderer, LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P., Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell & Megan Dixon,
Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Robert
G. Houck Clifford Chance US, LLP, Andrea J. Robinson  Wilmer
Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, David Sapir Lesser  Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Harriet Hoder  Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, Michael A. Mugmon  Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr.  Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P.,
Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP &
Arthur J. Burke  Davis Polk & Wardwell.

The Norinchukin Bank, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Unger,
Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew W. Stern, Sidley Austin LLP, Arthur J.
Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Kenneth Benjamin Meyer, Sidley
Austin
LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Thomas
Andrew Paskowitz, Sidley Austin LLP & William J. Nissen, Sidley
Austin, LLP.

UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke , Davis Polk &
Wardwell, David Jarrett Arp, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, pro hac
vice, Gary Richard Spratling, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice, Jefferson Eliot Bell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Lawrence
Jay Zweifach, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Mark Adam Kirsch,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Matthew Roffman Greenfield , Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr. , Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P., Abram Jeremy Ellis, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP
& Eric Jonathan Stock, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

WestLB AG & WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG, Defendants,
represented
by Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Martin
Paparella, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Marc Alan Weinstein, Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P.


MDL 2904: DeMarco Suit v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Sean DeMarco, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED, doing business as: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated of
Nevada, and American Medial Collection Agency also known as:
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S BUREAU, INC., a New York corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05071 (Filed June 11, 2019), was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 14, 2019. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16685 to the
proceeding.

The DeMarco case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re:
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019.
These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II
          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          501 West Broadway Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com

Attorneys for Quest Diagnostic Incorporated are:

          ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
          333 South Hope Street 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          Facsimile: (213) 576-1100

MDL 2904: Woods Suit v. Quest, et al over Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Mark Woods, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED, doing business as: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated of
Nevada, a Nevada corporation; PTUM360 LLC a Delaware limted
liability company; American Medial Collection Agency also known as:
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S BUREAU, INC., a New York corporation;
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05817
(Filed July 5, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 14, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16689
to the proceeding.

The Woods case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These
actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Patty W Chen, Esq.
          Robert James Dart, Esq.
          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989

Attorneys for Quest Diagnostic Incorporated are:

          Alexander Akerman, Esq.
          ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
          333 South Hope Street 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          Facsimile: (213) 576-1100

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT: Class Action Over Water Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Conneticut Law Tribune, reports that a
state Superior Court judge has granted class certification for a
lawsuit on behalf of more than 9,000 Metropolitan District
Commission customers who claimed the nonprofit municipal
corporation charged them an unlawful annual water surcharge.

The ruling allows the litigation to proceed on behalf of a class of
consumers from East Granby, Farmington, Glastonbury and South
Windsor, who were charged a $158 annual surcharge in 2012, then
$423 the following year and $199 in 2014.

MDC argued it was within its rights to charge an annual fee, but
the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled against it, finding the
surcharge illegal.

And now Hartford Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher concluded
that one umbrella suit is a better option than multiple
proceedings.

"The class action for thousands nicked for relatively small change
makes sense," Moukawsher ruled. "It is the only way wrongs of these
types will ever be addressed."

Representing MDC are Robinson & Cole attorneys Wystan Ackerman,
Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- and Kevin Daly, Esq. -- kdaly@rc.com --
Ackerman relayed the following emailed statement from Christopher
Stone, assistant district counsel for the Metropolitan District
Commission: "The Metropolitan District respectfully disagrees with
the court's ruling and intends to continue to vigorously defend
this case. The non-member town surcharge dates back to 1942. The
District does not believe it has any implied contract with its
customers requiring it to refund charges after this charge had been
accepted and paid by its customers unchallenged for many years. The
court's certification of a class on an implied contract claim
appears to be unprecedented nationwide."

Three Izard, Kindall & Raabe attorneys—lead counsel Craig Raabe,
Esq. -- craabe@ikrlaw.com -- Christopher Barrett, Esq. --
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com -- and Oren Faircloth, Esq. --
ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com -- filed the class action on behalf of fellow
attorney and MDC consumer William Paetzold and his wife Lori.

"The plaintiffs are very pleased with the court's common-sense
ruling," Raabe said.

Here is a look at the attorneys in the case.

Craig Raabe

Raabe's commercial trial experience is broad, according to the
biography on his website, and includes antitrust, government
contracting, fraud, intellectual property and unfair trade
practices. He's also a member of the criminal defense bar, and has
tried criminal cases in state and federal court. Raabe also
counsels clients on compliance issues and government regulatory
enforcement actions. He is also a commercial, instrument-rated
pilot.

Christopher Barrett

Plaintiff counsel Barrett has recovered more than $150 million for
clients, according to the biography on his website. He was an
associate with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, where he prosecuted
class actions on behalf of plaintiffs, and with Mayer Brown, where
he focused on complex commercial litigation.

During law school, Barrett served as a judicial intern to two U.S.
district judges and a New York Supreme Court justice.

Oren Faircloth

Faircloth practices consumer protection actions, according to the
biography on his website. He graduated magna cum laude from
Quinnipiac University School of Law in 2016, where he won the
Terence H. Benbow Intramural Moot Court competition, receiving
awards for both outstanding performance in oral advocacy and
excellence in written advocacy. He served in the armed forces from
2010 to 2011.

Wystan Ackerman

Defense counsel Ackerman chairs the class action team at Robinson &
Cole. He authors a legal blog, Class Action Insider, and has been
involved in defending more than 60 class actions in numerous
jurisdictions, according to the biography on his website. His case
load has included putative class actions involving insurance and
financial services, products liability, data breaches, health care,
consumer contracts and securities.

Kevin Daly

Daly focuses his practice at Robinson & Cole on complex commercial
litigation and trade compliance issues, according to the biography
on his website. He is a member of the firm's business litigation
group and its manufacturing industry team. His practice involves
representing manufacturers, insurance companies and other
businesses in complex litigation, and trade compliance. Daly also
represents companies with financial relationships with the U.S.
government in defending False Claims Act litigation. [GN]


MICHIGAN: Court Party Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Hill Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENRY HILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRETCHEN WHITMER,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-cv-14568 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Mark
A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

In 2012, the Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole
sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
on cruel and unusual punishment.  The Michigan legislature, which
had previously excluded youth offenders convicted of first-degree
murder from the jurisdiction of the Michigan Parole Board, amended
its statutory scheme to address Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v.
Louisiana.  The new provision mandates resentencing for juveniles
who were convicted of first-degree homicide offenses before Miller
and who received mandatory life without parole sentences.

The statute requires these individuals to be resentenced either to
life without parole or to a term of years.  Prosecutors may seek a
life-without-parole sentence by filing a motion specifying the
grounds for imposing such a punishment.  The sentencing court must
then hold a hearing on the motion, at which "the trial court will
consider the factors listed in Miller v. Alabama, and may consider
any other criteria relevant to its decision, including the
individual's record while incarcerated."  If no such motion is
filed, the court must resentence the individual to a minimum term
of 25-40 years and a maximum term of 60 years.  At the time the
instant motion was filed, approximately 235 Plaintiffs were still
awaiting resentencing.

The Plaintiffs who have yet to be resentenced are denied "core"
rehabilitative programming.  "Core" programming for inmates
consists of thirteen programs for men and thirteen programs for
women.  This includes the Violence Prevention Program, Michigan Sex
Offender Programming, Thinking for a Change, and substance abuse
programs, among others.  The programs have certain specific
criteria, and when an individual meets those criteria, the core
program is recommended for him or her when he or she enters the
prison.  Core programming is made available to a particular
prisoner based on his or her proximity to the prisoner's earliest
release date ("ERD") (also known as "parole board jurisdiction
date," or "PBJ").  

The Plaintiffs who have not yet been resentenced do not have an
ERD/PBJ date, and, therefore, are not put into core programs.  They
contend that the denial of core programming violates their Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights.   The Plaintiffs are juvenile
homicide offenders who, prior to the Supreme Court's decisions,
were sentenced to mandatory life without parole.  Now, in light of
Montgomery and Miller, they are being resentenced and, for the
first time, have the opportunity to appear before the parole
board.

Count VI of the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, the sole
remaining claim in the case, alleges that the Defendants have
"refused and failed to provide programming, education, training and
rehabilitation opportunities necessary for the Plaintiffs to
demonstrate their suitability for release, which has resulted in
the Plaintiffs' loss of liberty and extended their incarceration,
causing them physical injuries and severe emotional distress, in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Defendants admit that it is possible that prisoners who have
not completed certain programming may be directed by the parole
board to complete that programming before they can be released on
parole, even though the programming has not yet been made available
to them.  They point out, however, that once a Plaintiff is
resentenced, he or she then has an ERD/PBJ date, and is able to
participate in core programming in accordance with this date.

The Defendants represent that the vast majority of the Plaintiffs
who have received a parole decision -- 68 out of 72 parole-eligible
class members -- were released on parole.  The four Plaintiffs who
were parole eligible, but denied immediate parole, will be able to
appear again before the parole board anywhere from one to five
years after their initial appearance.  The majority of the
Plaintiffs, however -- 235 out of a class of 373 -- have yet to be
resentenced.

Defendants Heidi Washington and Michael Eagen have moved for
summary judgment on this claim.

Judge Goldsmith finds that the facts do not support a finding that,
at resentencing, the Plaintiffs are being denied their meaningful
opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation because they are unable to take core programming.
The Defendants are granted summary judgment as to the issue.

The Judge cannot also determine whether the denial of core
programming to the Plaintiffs deprives them of the meaningful
opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation at a parole hearing.  Hence, the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment is denied as to the issue of parole.

For the reasons provided, Judge Goldsmith granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The
Court will conduct a telephonic status conference on July 22, 2019
at 4:00 p.m. to discuss next steps in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/PtImaM from Leagle.com.

Keith Maxey, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin --
dkorobkin@aclumich.org -- American Civil Liberties Union of
Michigan, Ezekiel R. Edwards, The American Civil Liberties
Foundation, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil Liberties Union
Fund of Michigan, Ronald J. Reosti -- ron.reosti@gmail.com --
Reosti & Sirlin, P.C., Steven M. Watt, American Civil Liberties
Union, & Deborah A. LaBelle.

Giovanni Casper, Jean Cintron, Nicole Dupure & Dontez Tillman,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil
Liberties Union of Michigan, Deborah A. LaBelle & Ronald J.
Reosti, Reosti & Sirlin, P.C.

Rick Snyder, HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, Michael Eagen & Bill Schuette,
Defendants, represented by B. Eric Restuccia, Michigan Department
of Attorney General, Joseph T. Froehlich, Michigan Attorney
General Civil Litigation, Employment & Elections Division,
Kathryn M. Dalzell, State of Michigan -- Attorney General &
Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan Department of Attorney General Civil
Litigation, Employment & Elections Division.

Daryl E. Smith, Interested Party, pro se.


MISSOURI: Atty. General Can't Intervene as Defendant in Dalton Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Central Division, denied the Missouri
Attorney General's motion to intervene as a Defendant in the case,
Randall Lee DALTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael BARRETT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04057-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

On March 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs initiated the case in state court
as a putative class action against the State of Missouri and the
Governor as well as the Director and Commissioners of the Missouri
State Public Defenders ("MSPD Defendants").  The Plaintiffs allege
that Missouri has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to
provide the indigent defendants with meaningful representation,
largely because the MSPD is underfunded and overworked.  The
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief that provides
indigent criminal defendants and juvenile respondents with
constitutionally adequate legal representation.

On April 7, 2017, the State Defendants, through the Attorney
General of the State of Missouri, removed the case to federal
court.  On removal, the case was included in the Western District
of Missouri's Mediation and Assessment Program ("MAP") and assigned
to an outside mediator.  The Court set a discovery deadline of Dec.
15, 2017, and trial was set for May 14, 2018.

Shortly after removal, however, the State Defendants -- both
represented by the Attorney General -- filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that the State and Governor are shielded by sovereign
immunity.  The Court denied the motion.  The State Defendants filed
a notice of appeal.

While the appeal was pending, the Court extended the discovery
deadline, and the parties conducted substantial discovery.  The
parties, including the State Defendants, who were represented by
the Attorney General, also participated in mediation.  Trial was
rescheduled for May 29, 2018.

After discovery was complete, the State Defendants, through the
Attorney General, moved to stay the case pending appeal and to
realign the MSPD Defendants with the Plaintiffs.  The MSPD
Defendants and the Plaintiffs opposed the motion to realign, citing
divergent interests and the untimeliness of the motion.  The motion
was denied without prejudice; the trial was twice continued, and
later struck entirely pending the appeal.

On Jan. 10, 2019, the Eighth Circuit reversed the Court's decision
on sovereign immunity.  After the mandate was issued, the Court
dismissed the State Defendants, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On March 1, 2019, the remaining parties
-- the Plaintiffs and the MSPD Defendants -- were ordered to
proceed to mediation within 30 days, and to submit a proposed
scheduling order.  The parties proceeded to the Court-ordered
mediation on March 15, 2019, and trial was set for Aug. 19, 2019.

On March 27, 2019, while mediation efforts were underway, the MSPD
Defendants wrote to the Attorney General to request coverage by the
state legal expense fund.  In response, the Attorney General sought
information concerning the MSPD Defendants' plans regarding defense
of the case, trial plan, etc., but the MSPD Defendants, citing the
State Defendants' motion to realign (which had asserted the
existence of a conflict between the State Defendants and the MSPD
Defendants) and the confidential nature of the mediation, declined
to share such details.

On May 13, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for entry of a
consent judgment.  The proposed consent judgment states that the
Plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits based on
"overwhelming admissible evidence" showing that MSPD is "grossly
overburdened, and that the burden under which MSPD operates
routinely and systematically harms indigent criminal defendants by
depriving them of competent counsel.  The proposed consent judgment
requires that the MSPD take certain actions to ensure
constitutionally adequate representation for the Plaintiffs and
other indigent defendants.  It also provides for the appointment of
a monitor with reporting obligations, establishes a rubric by which
the MSPD would determine when an individual public defender has
reached capacity, and requires the MSPD to ensure that public
defenders do not exceed the workload capacity established by the
proposed consent judgment.  Finally, it provides a mechanism for
dispute resolution, and permits enforcement by a defined group of
third-party beneficiaries.

On May 14, 2019, the day after the parties moved for entry of the
proposed consent judgment, the Attorney General filed a motion to
intervene, and a motion to stay the case pending resolution of the
motion to intervene.

In light of the Attorney General's two-year knowledge of the action
and failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in
seeking intervention, the advanced stage of the litigation, and the
substantial risk of prejudice to the existing parties who have
reached an amicable resolution, Judge Laughrey finds that the
Attorney General's motion to intervene is untimely.  Even if the
Attorney General's motion to intervene had been timely, the Judge
would deny the motion to intervene as a matter of right because the
Attorney General has failed to demonstrate a cognizable interest in
the subject matter of the litigation that might be impaired by the
disposition of the case.

The Judge also finds that permissive intervention is unwarranted.
Intervention by the Attorney General as a full-party Defendant at
this stage in the case would result in substantial delay and
prejudice to the adjudication of the parties' rights.  Moreover,
denial of permissive intervention is appropriate where a would-be
intervenor's proposed pleading fails to raise any claim or defense
that is "different from those of the existing parties."  Thus,
permissive intervention is denied.

Although the Judge finds that the Attorney General has not made a
showing sufficient to warrant intervention, in light of the Court's
obligation to consider whether the proposed consent judgment
comports with applicable law, the Judge will permit the Attorney
General to submit an amicus brief concerning whether the proposed
consent judgment is consistent with Missouri law and whether the
proposed consent judgment will unavoidably and adversely affect
public safety and welfare in a concrete and particularized way.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Laughrey denied the Attorney
General's motion to intervene.  The Attorney General's related
motion to stay these proceedings is denied as moot.  However, the
Attorney General may, within two weeks of the date of the Order,
file an amicus brief not exceeding 25 pages that addresses whether
the proposed consent judgment comports with Missouri law and
whether it will unavoidably and adversely affect public safety and
welfare in a concrete and particularized way.  The Plaintiffs and
the MSPD Defendants will each have two weeks after the filing of
the amicus brief to file a response.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mqSSkL from Leagle.com.

Randall Lee Dalton, Dorian Samuels, Viola Bowman & Brian Richman,
Plaintiffs, represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur
Justice
Center at St. Louis, Anjali Prasad, pro hac vice, Anthony E.
Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation,
Anthony Tartaglio , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac
vice, Camille Joanne Rosca, pro hac vice, Easha Anand --
eanand@orrick.com -- Orrick, pro hac vice, Evan Rose --
erose@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gillian R.
Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation,
Jason D. Williamson, pro hac vice, Jessie Steffan, American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Matthew R. Shahabian --
mshahabian@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac
vice, Robert L. Sills, pro hac vice & Will Melehani, pro hac vice.

Michael Barrett, H. Riley Bock, Charles R Jackson, Craig Chval &
A.
Crista Hogan, Defendants, represented by John Gregory Mermelstein,
Missouri State Public Defender Admin and Appellate & Patrick J.
Berrigan, Missouri State Public Defender System Capital Litigation
Division, Western District.


MOMENTA PHARMA: Hospital Authority Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by The Hospital
Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September
2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the
Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic
Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for
generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal
anti-trust laws.

NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and
unspecified damages and fees.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss
and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21, 2017, the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
dismissed NGH's claim for damages against the Company and Sandoz,
but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for NGH's claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief.

In the same opinion, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to
transfer.

On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add a
new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, or
DC37. NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for damages under the laws
of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin.

On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing the
motion to amend the complaint. On December 14, 2017, the District
Court granted NGH's motion to amend. In January 2018, the Company
and Sandoz filed three motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On
December 6, 2018 the District Court granted one of the motions,
granted one in part and denied one.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals said, "As a result the suit will continue
pursuant to the surviving portions of the amended complaint. While
the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company
believes this suit is without merit, and intends to vigorously
defend itself in this litigation."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on
the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the
treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name
to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


MOMENTA PHARMA: M923-Related Proceedings Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend litigation related to M923—Biosimilar
HUMIRA(R) adalimumab) Candidate, a drug used to treat patients with
moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

On March 19, 2019, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, or UFCW, filed a
class action suit against AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd.,
Amgen Inc., Samsung Bioepsis Co., Ltd., Mylan, Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Pfizer
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Company, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated for alleged violations of
state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. According
to the complaint, UFCW is seeking injunctive and other equitable
relief and damages.

A second complaint mirroring that filed by UFCW, was filed on April
19, 2019 in United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by the Sheet Metal Workers' location Union No. 28
Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
also names AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., Amgen Inc.,
Samsung Bioepsis Co., Ltd., Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and the Company as defendants.

In August 2019, the Company announced it will cease active
development activities for M923 at this time, which is fully
developed and ready for submission of a BLA with the FDA and a MAA
in Europe for approval, due to changes in market opportunity
relating to its launch.

The Company noted that, while the outcome of litigation is
inherently uncertain, it believes both of the lawsuits are without
merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in these
litigations.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on
the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the
treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name
to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: New GM Faces "Several Hundreds" of PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the new General Motors
Company, formerly known as NGMCO, Inc. ("New GM") is facing
"several hundreds of other actions" pending in various courts in
the United States and Canada seeking compensatory and other damages
and other relief for personal injury and other claims allegedly
arising from accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying
condition of the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New
GM.

The Company said, "Certain of these cases, or the Ignition Switch
Personal Injury Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall,
certain other cases, or the Other Personal Injury Actions, concern
recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others
concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other
recalls."

The Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust ("GUC Trust") is a
successor to Motors Liquidation Company (formerly known as General
Motors Corp.) ("MLC") within the meaning of Section 1145 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code ("Bankruptcy Code").  The GUC Trust
holds, administers and directs the distribution of certain assets
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Second Amended and
Restated Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust Agreement (the "GUC
Trust Agreement"), dated as of July 30, 2015, and as amended from
time to time, and pursuant to the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11
Plan (the "Plan"), dated March 18, 2011, of MLC and its debtor
affiliates (collectively, along with MLC, the "Debtors"), for the
benefit of holders of allowed general unsecured claims against the
Debtors ("Allowed General Unsecured Claims").  The GUC Trust was
formed on March 30, 2011, as a statutory trust under the Delaware
Statutory Trust Act, for the purposes of implementing the Plan and
distributing the GUC Trust's distributable assets.


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: New GM Faces 100 Economic-Related Loss Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August
13, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
new General Motors Company, formerly known as NGMCO, Inc. ("New
GM") is facing more than 100 putative class actions pending as of
August 1, 2019, in various courts in the United States and Canada
seeking compensatory and other damages and other relief for
economic losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls
announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles
covered by those recalls.

The Company said, "Certain of these over 100 cases, or the Ignition
Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall,
certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions, concern
recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others
concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other
recalls."

The Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust ("GUC Trust") is a
successor to Motors Liquidation Company (formerly known as General
Motors Corp.) ("MLC") within the meaning of Section 1145 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code ("Bankruptcy Code").  The GUC Trust
holds, administers and directs the distribution of certain assets
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Second Amended and
Restated Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust Agreement (the "GUC
Trust Agreement"), dated as of July 30, 2015, and as amended from
time to time, and pursuant to the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11
Plan (the "Plan"), dated March 18, 2011, of MLC and its debtor
affiliates (collectively, along with MLC, the "Debtors"), for the
benefit of holders of allowed general unsecured claims against the
Debtors ("Allowed General Unsecured Claims").  The GUC Trust was
formed on March 30, 2011, as a statutory trust under the Delaware
Statutory Trust Act, for the purposes of implementing the Plan and
distributing the GUC Trust's distributable assets.


MUSICAL.LY: Gathers Kids Info Without Parent's Consent, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B.M. through her mother ASHLEY SCOTT, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUSICAL.LY;
MUSICAL.LY, INC.,; and BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06851 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants' use of the video-sharing social
media application Musical.ly, and its successor application TikTok,
to gather and publish the personal information of children under
the age of 13 without receiving consent from or providing notice to
the children's parents prior to the gathering and publication of
such information, in direct violation of the federal Children's
Online Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
collected, used, or disclosed the personal information of the
Plaintiff’s child without notifying her parents. The Plaintiff
never knew that the Defendants collected, disclosed, or used her
child's personal information because the Defendants at all times
failed to provide the Plaintiff any of the required disclosures,
never sought verifiable parental consent, and never provided a
mechanism by which the Plaintiff could provide verifiable consent.

Musical.ly Inc. is a free service and social media platform for
creating and sharing short videos. More than just a video creation
tool, the Company is a fully realized platform for connecting
individuals to a vibrant community of content creators. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Ave., Third Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason Rathod,Esq.
          Esfand Nafisi, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Email: enafisi@classlawdc.com
                 nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com


MYRIAD GENETICS: Unit Still Faces Potential Class Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary Assurex Health,
Inc. continues to defend itself in a potential class action in
Illinois, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2019.

On August 24, 2018, Assurex Health, Inc. was served with an Amended
Complaint which had been filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Law Division, Civil Action No. 2018 L
004972, by Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Plan ("Pipe Trades"), as
a qui tam relator, on behalf of the State of Illinois, Pipe Trades,
and all others similarly situated, purportedly arising from
Assurex's alleged violations of the Illinois Insurance Claims Fraud
Prevention Act and other causes of action.

Pipe Trades seeks certification of a putative class, certification
as the purported class representative, and the payment of treble
damages allegedly sustained by Pipe Trades and the purported class
by reason of the allegations set forth in the amended complaint,
plus statutory damages and penalties, plus interest, and legal and
other costs and fees.

The State of Illinois and Cook County, Illinois, have declined to
intervene in the matter.

On October 22, 2018, Assurex filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction requesting that
the amended complaint be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice,
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On July 25, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion in part
and denied it in part, with the effect that plaintiffs must file an
amended complaint.

The Company said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
against this action.  Due to the nature of this matter and inherent
uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss, if any."

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.


NATERA INC: Seeks to Dismiss TCPA Class Action in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss a purported Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff
received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Among other
relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.

On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is
currently pending.

Natera said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter
but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that
an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition and results of operations.  The Company is
unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from any unfavorable outcome."

Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services.  The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc.
in 2012.  Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.


NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss TV Ads Antitrust Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that defendants are seeking
the dismissal of a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re:
Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785.

On July 30, 2018, Clay, Massey & Associates, PC filed an antitrust
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated against Gray Television, Inc., Hearst Communications,
Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Tegna Inc., Tribune Media Company and
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges unlawful coordination between broadcast
television station owners to artificially increase prices of
television spot advertisements in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1). Nexstar has since been named in
15 similar complaints.       

On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").

On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel. The MDL Litigation is
ongoing. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April
3, 2019; Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2019.

Nexstar denies the allegations against it and will defend its
advertising practices as necessary.

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.


OCEAN SPRAY: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Hilsley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRYSTAL HILSLEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC.;
ARNOLD WORLDWIDE LLC; and DOES defendants 1 through 5, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 17cv2335-GPC (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo
P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Defendant's motion to decertify class.

In November 2017, the Plaintiff filed a consumer class action for
violations of California consumer protection laws claiming that the
"no artificial flavors" labels on Ocean Spray's Products at issue
are false and misleading because each Product contains the
artificial flavors of dl-malic acid or fumaric acid, or both, that
simulate advertised fruit flavors.  She alleges six causes of
action for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA");
violation of the unlawful prong of the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); violation of the unfair prong of the UCL; violation of
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), breach of express
warranty and breach of implied warranty.

On Nov. 29, 2018, the Court granted in part the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and appointed the class counsel.  It
certified a Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule")
23(b)(2) and also certified a Class under Rule 23(b)(3) as to the
UCL, FAL and CLRA causes of action consisting of: All California
Citizens who purchased one of the following Ocean Spray Products,
for personal and household use and not for resale, in California
from Jan. 1, 2011 until the date class notice is disseminated:
Ocean Spray Cran Apple; Ocean Spray Cran Grape; Ocean Spray 100%
Apple Juice Drink; Ocean Spray Cran Rasberry; Ocean Spray Wave
Apple with White Cranberries; Ocean Spray Wave Berry Medley; Ocean
Spray Cran Cherry; Ocean Spray Cran Pineapple; Ocean Spray Cran
Pomegranate; Ocean Spray Diet Cran Pomegranate; Ocean Spray Diet
Cran Cherry; and Ocean Spray Cranberry Cherry Flavor 100% Juice.

After discovery was almost completed, Ocean Spray filed a motion to
decertify class.  Since the Court's order on certifying the class,
the Plaintiff obtained Ocean Spray's retail sales records from
Information Resources, Inc. ("IRI") for the period 2015-2019, and
the Defendant deposed the Plaintiff's damages experts, Dr. George
E. Belch and Dr. Alan G. Goedde.  The Defendant solely moves to
decertify the class on whether predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) is
met arguing the Plaintiff's price premium damages model presented
by Dr. Belch and Dr. Goedde does not comply with Comcast.

Judge Curiel explains that the Plaintiff's liability case is based
upon the alleged mislabeling on Ocean Spray "Cran-Apple" and
"Cran-Grape" products which state "No artificial flavors" when in
fact they contain artificial flavoring chemicals that simulate the
advertised fruit flavors.  The Plaintiff asserts that these
misrepresentations led consumers to pay more than they otherwise
would have paid.  Therefore, the Plaintiff's damages model must
measure only those damages attributable to Ocean Spray's conduct of
mislabeling its Products.

At this stage, the Judge need not determine which expert's analysis
should apply.  As long as the Plaintiff presents real world pricing
data to support her damages model, she has sufficiently satisfied
Comcast, and any disputes as to the method of calculating the price
premium can be challenged later at trial.  He concludes that the
Plaintiff has satisfied the supply factor of the price premium
damages model.

Moreover, as to a Comcast analysis, the Defendant's argument does
not challenge whether the Plaintiff's damages theory is consistent
with her theory of liability but merely challenges the reliability
of the underlying data.  The Defendant's challenge to Dr. Belch's
methodology is without merit.  Ocean Spray's argument raises issues
concerning the merits of the damages calculation and not challenges
to decertify a class under Comcast.

Thus, the Defendant's arguments challenging the demand side
"willingness to pay" survey methodology of Dr. Belch's does not
warrant decertification.  Because the demand side and supply side
factors of the Plaintiff's price premium analysis have been
accounted for in Dr. Belch and Dr. Goedde's expert reports and
declarations, they satisfy Comcast.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Curiel denied the Defendant Ocean
Spray's motion to decertify, and vacated the hearing set for July
12, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QdQXtw from Leagle.com.

Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byDavid Elliot, The Elliott Law
Firm, Lilach Halperin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
PLC,Michael
Houchin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald Marron, Law
Office of Ronald Marron, 651 Arroyo DriveSan Diego, CA 92103

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. & Arnold Worldwide LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

The Nielsen Company (U.S.), LLC, Miscellaneous Party, represented
by Heather Elizabeth Belville -- heatherbelville@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Robert James Slobig --
rslobig@torshen.com -- Torshen, Slobig & Axel, Ltd., pro hac vice.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Appeal in Carvelli Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the case,
Carvelli v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al., still remains
pending.

The company had previously disclosed that as a result of the
federal and state regulatory actions taken in April 2017 and
shortly thereafter, and the impact on the company's stock price,
several putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed
against Ocwen and certain of its officers that contain allegations
in connection with Ocwen's statements concerning its efforts to
satisfy the evolving regulatory environment, and the resources it
devoted to regulatory compliance, among other matters. Those
lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida in the matter captioned Carvelli
v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al. (S.D. Fla.).

In April 2018, the court in Carvelli granted the company's motion
to dismiss, and dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice.
Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal, and that appeal
remains pending.

Ocwen and the other defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously.

Ocwen Financial said, "Additional lawsuits may be filed against us
in relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is unable to
predict the outcome of this existing lawsuit or any additional
lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the
potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. If
additional lawsuits are filed, Ocwen intends to vigorously defend
itself against such lawsuits. If our efforts to defend the existing
lawsuit or any future lawsuit are not successful, our business,
financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be
materially and adversely affected."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court to Okay Settlement in McWhorter Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the court in McWhorter et
al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D. Ala.), has indicated that it
would grant final approval of the parties' proposed class
settlement.   

In 2014, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ocwen in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, alleging that Ocwen violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) by charging borrowers a convenience fee for
making certain loan payment.

The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under the FDCPA,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The presiding court
previously ruled on Ocwen's motions to dismiss, and Ocwen answered
the operative complaint.

Ocwen subsequently entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve this matter, and in January 2019, the presiding court
granted preliminary approval of the parties' proposed class
settlement.

At a hearing in July 2019, the court indicated that it would grant
final approval of the parties' proposed class settlement.

Ocwen  said, "While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and
factual defenses, we agreed to this settlement in principle in
order to avoid the uncertain outcome of litigation and the
additional expense and demands on the time of its senior management
that such litigation would involve. There can be no assurance that
the court will finally approve the settlement. In the event the
settlement is not finally approved, the litigation would continue,
and we would vigorously defend the allegations made against Ocwen.
Our accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $53.1
million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. We cannot
currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss
above the amount accrued."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court to Re-Visit Order Granting TCPA Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the court in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) related suit, indicated
that it might re-visit its order granting final approval of the
settlement depending on certain events in a related TCPA class
action.

Ocwen has been named in putative class actions and individual
actions related to its compliance with the TCPA. Generally,
plaintiffs in these actions allege that Ocwen knowingly and
willfully violated the TCPA by using an automated telephone dialing
system to call individuals' cell phones without their consent.

In July 2017, Ocwen entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve two such putative class actions, which have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D.
Ill.); Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D. Ill.)).

The settlement would provide for the establishment of a settlement
fund to be distributed to impacted borrowers that submit claims for
settlement benefits pursuant to a claims administration process.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses,
Ocwen agreed to the settlement in order to avoid the uncertain
outcome of litigation and the additional expense and demands on the
time of its senior management that such litigation would involve.

In October 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement
and, thereafter, the company paid the settlement amount into an
escrow account held by the settlement administrator. However, in
September 2018, the Court denied the motion for final approval.

In November 2018, the parties engaged in mediation to address the
issues raised by the Court in its denial order. The parties
thereafter reached a revised agreement, and in June 2019 the court
entered an order approving the settlement.

However, in July 2019, the court stated that it might re-visit its
order granting final approval of the settlement depending on
certain events in a related TCPA class action.  

The court nevertheless directed Ocwen to move forward with
fulfilling its obligations under the settlement.

The related TCPA class action is pending in front of the same judge
and involves claims against trustees of RMBS trusts based on
vicarious liability for Ocwen's alleged non-compliance with the
TCPA.  

The trustees have indicated they may seek indemnification from
Ocwen based on the vicarious liability claims. Additional lawsuits
may be filed against us in relation to our TCPA compliance.

At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of existing
lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of
such lawsuits or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us
or our operations. Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not
successful, our business, financial condition liquidity and results
of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Ocwen said, "We have settled two "opt-out" securities fraud actions
brought on behalf of certain putative shareholders of Ocwen based
on allegations in connection with the restatements of our 2013 and
first quarter 2014 financial statements, among other matters
(Brahman Partners et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al.
(S.D. Fla.) and Owl Creek et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et
al. (S.D. Fla.)). Both of these cases have been dismissed with
prejudice in February 2019.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Danker Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit Danker v. Papa John's
International, Inc. et al., is pending.

On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's
through a period up to and including July 19, 2018.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections l0(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The District Court has
appointed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System to lead
the case and has also issued a scheduling order for the case to
proceed.  

An amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2019, which the
Company has moved to dismiss.

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses to
these suits and intends to vigorously defend against them.  

The Company has not recorded any liability related to these
lawsuits as of June 30, 2019 as it does not believe a loss is
probable or reasonably estimable.

Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through four
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International
Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.


PARKING REIT: Magowski and Barene Stockholders Lawsuits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits in
Baltimore City, Maryland, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On May 31, 2019, and June 27, 2019, alleged stockholders filed
class action lawsuits alleging direct and derivative claims against
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, MVP Realty
Advisors, Vestin Realty Mortgage I, and Vestin Realty Mortgage II
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, captioned Arthur Magowski
v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-19003125 (filed on May
31, 2019) (the "Magowski Complaint") and Michelle Barene v. The
Parking REIT, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-19003527 (filed on June 27,
2019) (the "Barene Complaint").

The Magowski Complaint asserts direct claims on behalf of all
stockholders (other than the defendants and persons or entities
related to or affiliated with any defendant) for breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from the Company's
decision to internalize its advisory function.  In this Complaint,
Plaintiff Magowski asserts that the stockholders have been directly
injured by the internalization and related transactions.

The Barene Complaint asserts both direct and derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duty arising from substantially similar
allegations as those contained in the Magowski Complaint.  The
direct claims are asserted on behalf of the same class of
stockholder as the direct claims in the Magowski Complaint, and the
derivative claims in the Barene Complaint are asserted on behalf of
the Company.

The Magowski and Barene Complaints seek, among other things,
damages; declaratory relief; equitable relief to reverse and enjoin
the internalization transaction; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.  The actions are at a preliminary stage.  The Company and
the board of directors intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.

The Magowski Complaint also previewed that a stockholder demand
would be made on the Board to take action with respect to claims
belonging to the Company for the alleged injury to the Company.  On
June 19, 2019, Magowski submitted a formal demand letter to the
Board asserting the same alleged wrongdoing as alleged in the
Magowski Complaint and demanding that the Board investigate the
alleged wrongdoing and take action to remedy the alleged injury to
the Company.  The demand includes that claims be initiated against
the same defendants as are named in the Magowski Complaint.

In response to this stockholder demand letter, on July 16, 2019,
the Board established a demand review committee of two independent
directors to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing made in the
letter and to make a recommendation to the Board for a response to
the letter.  The work of the demand review committee is on-going.

The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


PARKING REIT: SIPDA Named as Lead Plaintiff in Nevada Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that on June 13, 2019, the court has granted
stockholder SIPDA Revocable Trust's motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff in a purported class action in Nevada.

On March 12, 2019, stockholder SIPDA Revocable Trust ("SIPDA")
filed a purported class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  The
complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all
public shareholders of the Company and MVP I between August 11,
2017 and December 15, 2017 in connection with the proxy statements
filed with the SEC to obtain shareholder approval for the merger of
the Company and MVP I (the "proxy statements").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the proxy
statements failed to disclose that two major reasons for the merger
and certain charter amendments implemented in connection therewith
were (i) to facilitate the execution of an amended advisory
agreement that allegedly is designed to benefit Mr. Shustek
financially in the event of an internalization and (ii) to give Mr.
Shustek the ability to cause the Company to internalize based on
terms set forth in the amended advisory agreement.

The complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that all defendants
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, by disseminating proxy statements that
allegedly contain false and misleading statements or omit to state
material facts; (ii) that the director defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act; (iii) that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the members of the class and to
the Company; and (iv) that the internalization transaction will
unjustly enrich certain directors and officers of the Company.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages; an
order enjoining the Company's listing on Nasdaq; declaratory
relief; and the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants'
and experts' fees, costs and expenses.

On June 13, 2019, the court granted SIPDA's motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff.

The Company said, "The litigation is still at a preliminary stage.
The Company and the Board of Directors have reviewed the
allegations in the complaint and believe the claims asserted
against them in the complaint are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend this action."

The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the case entitled, Martha
Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America,
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon
Energy Production, LP, et al., remains pending, according to Petro
River Oil Corp.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 13, 2019, for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2019.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint
styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of
America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW,
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(the "Proceeding").

The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically
named operators, including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County
lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement,
lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases,
concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12,
2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal
regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas
leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab
initio.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged
nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment.  The
potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the
corresponding leases.  

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various
procedural and legal grounds.

Following the significant briefing, the Court, on March 31, 2016,
granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all defendants and entered a
judgment in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs.

On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other defendants, filed a
Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs.  The motion remains
pending.

On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to
Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a
Motion to Vacate Order.

On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all three of Plaintiffs'
motions.

On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  That appeal is pending as of the
filing date of these financial statements.

The Company said, "There is no specific timeline by which the Court
of Appeals must render a ruling.  Spyglass intends to continue to
vigorously defend its interest in this matter."

Petro River Oil Corp., an independent energy company, focuses on
the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets.
It primarily holds interests in the Mid-Continent Region in
Oklahoma, including Osage County and Kay County, Oklahoma. The
company is based in New York, New York.


PICK RESEARCH: Retina Sues over Unsolicited Junk Faxes
------------------------------------------------------
RETINA ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GROUP, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PICK RESEARCH
SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a PICK RESEARCH SOLUTIONS and DAVID L. PICK
d/b/a PICK RESEARCH SOLUTIONS, the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01592 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
transmitting fax to the Plaintiff and the Class members without
obtaining their prior express invitation or permission and by not
displaying the proper opt-out notice required by 47 C.F.R. section
64.1200(a)(4).

According to the complaint, the Defendants, directly or through
other persons acting on their behalf, conspired to, agreed to,
contributed to, assisted with, or otherwise caused the wrongful
acts and omissions, including the dissemination of the junk faxes.

On or about April 24, 2019, the Defendants, or someone acting on
their behalf, used a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or
other device to send to Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine at
(714) 633-7470 an unsolicited advertisement.

Pick Research specializes finding solutions to marketing research
needs.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Port Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-524-2820
          Facsimile: 954-524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

PLANTRONICS INC: Parties in Shin Suit Seek Initial Okay of Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plantronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that an amended unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of settlement has been reached by
the parties in the class action suit initiated by Phil Shin.

On September 13, 2018, Mr. Phil Shin filed on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, a purported Class Action Complaint in
the United States District Court of the Northern District of
California alleging violations of various federal and state
consumer protection laws in addition to unfair competition and
fraud claims in connection with the Company's BackBeat FIT
headphones.  

The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint in November 2018.  Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint on December 14, 2018.  

The matter has now been resolved and the settlement is pending
court approval.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

On June 17, 2019, the Court denied preliminary approval on the
basis that the scope of the release was overly broad. An amended
unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval has been agreed on by
Parties and is pending filing.

Plantronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets various
integrated communications and collaborations solutions for
corporate customers, small businesses, and individuals worldwide.
Plantronics, Inc. was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Santa
Cruz, California.


POPULAR INC: 2 Harassment Class Suits in New York Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that its New York-chartered banking subsidiary,
Popular Bank ("PB") is facing two related class action complaints
over alleged sexual harassment and/or misconduct by a former PB
employee.

On July 30, 2019, Popular Bank ("PB") was served in a putative
class complaint in which it was named as a defendant along with
five (5) current PB employees (collectively, the "AB Defendants"),
captioned Aileen Betances, et al. v. Popular Bank, et al., filed
before the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "AB
Action").  The complaint, filed by five (5) current and former PB
employees, seeks to recover damages for the AB Defendants' alleged
violation of local and state sexual harassment, discrimination and
retaliation laws.

Additionally, on July 30, 2019, PB was served in a putative class
complaint in which it was named as a defendant along with six (6)
current PB employees (collectively, the "DR Defendants"), captioned
Damian Reyes, et al. v. Popular Bank, et al., filed before the
Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "DR Action").  The DR
Action, filed by three (3) current and former PB employees, seeks
to recover damages for the DR Defendants' alleged violation of
local and state discrimination and retaliation laws.

Plaintiffs in both complaints are represented by the same legal
counsel, and five of the six named individual defendants in the DR
Action are the same named individual defendants in the AB Action.
Both complaints are related, among other things, to allegations of
purported sexual harassment and/or misconduct by a former PB
employee as well as PB's actions in connection thereto and seek no
less than US$100 million in damages each.  The current deadline to
file a response to both complaints is on or before September 19,
2019.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Appeal in Camacho Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that the case styled Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et
al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al. is still pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Company's principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico ("BPPR"), has been named a defendant in a putative class
action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular
de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders
who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or
loan modifications through their mortgage servicers.

Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel
(or dual tracking).  Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate
the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home
Affordable Refinance Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored
loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage
Debtor Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").

For the alleged violations, plaintiffs request that all defendants
(over 20, including all local banks), be held jointly and severally
liable in an amount no less than US$400 million.

BPPR filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most
co-defendants, and, in March 2018, the District Court dismissed the
complaint in its entirety.  After being denied reconsideration by
the District Court, on August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The
Court of Appeals has entered an order where it consolidated three
pending appeals related to the same subset of facts.

On July 29, 2019, the Appellants filed their brief; Appellees'
brief was due August 28, 2019.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Reconsideration in Maura
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that in the putative class action captioned Yiries
Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., the Court held a hearing
on May 14, 2019 but has yet to issue a new Opinion and Order
covering the Motion for Reconsideration and the defendants' motion
to dismiss, as well as several other pending motions.

The Company's principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico ("BPPR"), has been named a defendant in a putative class
action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al.,
filed by the same counsel who filed the Gonzalez Camacho action, on
behalf of residential customers of the defendant banks who have
allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan
modifications through their mortgage servicers.

As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel, all in violation of TILA, the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and other consumer-protection
laws and regulations.  Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount
of damages in their complaint.

After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez
Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately).  BPPR
further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the
Court granted in September 2018.

On April 5, 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting
BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April
15, 2019, which Popular timely opposed.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Still Faces Diaz Insurance Commission-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. remains a defendant in a hazard insurance
commission-related litigation captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular,
Inc., et al, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, a status and
settlement conference is set for October 22, 2019.

Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Insurance, LLC (the "Popular
Defendants") have been named defendants in a putative class action
complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed
before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part.

The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the
Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and
MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance
Companies").  Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have
been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions
paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent
and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against
their hazard insurance policies.  They demand the reimbursement to
the purported "class" of an estimated US$400 million plus legal
interest, for the "good experience" commissions allegedly paid by
the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period,
as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant
Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance
agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the
insured.

A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the Defendant Insurance
Companies filed shortly before hearing, was denied with a right to
replead following limited targeted discovery.  The Court of Appeals
and then the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, both denied the Popular
Defendants' request to review the lower court's denial of the
motion to dismiss.

In December 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint and, on January
2018, defendants filed an answer thereto.  Separately, in October
2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the
class after which the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari
petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the
class certification, which the Court declined to entertain.

In November 2018 and in January 2019, Plaintiffs filed voluntary
dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and
Antilles Insurance Company, respectively.  Hence, now the Popular
Defendants remain the sole defendants in this action.

On April 8, 2019, the plaintiffs submitted proposed changes to the
certified class definition as well as the scope of the remedies
requested by the plaintiffs, which were timely opposed by Popular.

On April 24, 2019, the Court amended the class definition to limit
it to individual homeowners whose residential units were subject to
a mortgage from BPPR who, in turn, obtained risk insurance policies
with Antilles Insurance or MAPFRE Insurance through Popular
Insurance from 2002 to 2015, and who did not make insurance claims
against said policies during their effective term.  

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


POPULAR INC: Unit Still Faces Torres Class Action in Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that that the court overseeing the case, Ramirez
Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., issued an
Order on July 24, 2019 whereby it ordered plaintiffs to brief
certain threshold questions of law before ruling on the validity of
the endorsement.

The Company's principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico ("BPPR"), has been named a defendant in the Ramirez Torres
putative class action complaint filed before the Puerto Rico Court
of First Instance, San Juan Part.

The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same
Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with
insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico.  Plaintiffs
contend that in November 2015 Antilles Insurance Company obtained
approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to market an
endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain reimbursement on
their insurance deductible for good experience, but that defendants
failed to offer this product or disclose its existence to their
customers, favoring other products instead, in violation of their
duties as insurance brokers.

Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new
insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter
subject to a determination that defendants engaged in monopolistic
practices in failing to offer this product).

In July 2017, after co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive
relief, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, in March
2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's
dismissal.

In May 2018, all defendants filed their respective Petitions of
Certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which denied review.

On May 2, 2019, a hearing was held in the Court of First Instance,
where the parties requested that the Court first determine the
validity of the endorsement obtained by Antilles Insurance Company
and approved by the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner, which had
been challenged by a co-defendant in a third-party complaint
against Antilles Insurance Company.  Although the Court had agreed
to first rule on the validity of the endorsement and set an
injunction hearing for September 2019 in case the validity of said
endorsement is upheld, on July 24, 2019 the Court issued an Order
whereby it ordered plaintiffs to brief certain threshold questions
of law before ruling on the validity of the endorsement.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing vs. LG&E
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that LG&E continues to defend
a class action suit related to the Cane Run Environmental Claims.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act,
RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence.

These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus
costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations.

Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary
compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the Cane Run plant, which retired three
coal-fired units in 2015.

In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs sought
compensation for alleged adverse health effects.

In July 2014, the court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one
Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort
claims. In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
removing the personal injury claims and removing certain previously
named plaintiffs.

In February 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an Order
dismissing PPL as a defendant and dismissing the final federal
claim against LG&E. In April 2017, the U.S. District Court issued
an Order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the
state law claims and dismissed the case in its entirety.

In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.
Proceedings are currently underway regarding potential class
certification, for which a decision may be rendered in 2019.

PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an
estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PPL CORP: Talen Montana Retirement Plan Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Talen Montana Retirement
Plan and Talen Energy Marketing.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of the November 2014 distribution.

The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen
Putative Class Action).

The plaintiffs assert claims for, among other things, fraudulent
transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent
transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious
conduct; and unjust enrichment.

They are seeking avoidance of the purportedly fraudulent transfer,
unspecified damages, including punitive damages, the imposition of
a constructive trust, and other relief.

In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division.

In January 2019, the plaintiffs moved to remand the Talen Putative
Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice
all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case.

The parties engaged in limited discovery in connection with the
motion to remand, at the conclusion of which the parties will
complete their briefings on the matter to enable the Court to
consider the remand motion.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PRA GROUP: North Carolina State Court Denies Arbitration Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that in the case styled Iris Pounds v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, a North Carolina state court has denied
the Company's motion to compel arbitration and the Company is
seeking review of that decision.

On November 21, 2016, Iris Pounds filed suit against the Company in
Durham County, North Carolina alleging violations of the North
Carolina Prohibited Practices by Collection Agencies Act.  The
purported class consists of all individuals against whom the
Company had obtained a judgment by default in North Carolina on or
after October 1, 2009.

On December 9, 2016, the Company removed the matter to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
(the "District Court").  On March 28, 2018, the District Court
entered an order remanding the matter to the North Carolina state
court which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on May 17,
2018.

On January 11, 2019, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration with the North Carolina state court.  The North
Carolina state court denied the Company's motion to compel
arbitration and the Company is seeking review of that decision.

The Company said, "The range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated
at this time due to the uncertainty surrounding liability, class
certification and the interpretation of statutory damages."

PRA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries, is a
global financial and business services company with operations in
the Americas and Europe.  The Company's primary business is the
purchase, collection and management of portfolios of nonperforming
loans.


PRA GROUP: Still Defends MDL in S.D. Calif. over TCPA Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRA Group, Inc. disclosed in its Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that it continues to face a
multi-district litigation alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act before the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.

On January 25, 2017, the Company resolved the matter of In Re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, which consisted of a number of class actions and
single plaintiff claims consolidated by order of the Panel for
Multi-District Litigation ("MDL").

While the settlement disposed of a large number of claims, several
hundred class members opted out ("Opt-Out Plaintiffs") of that
settlement.  Many of these Opt-Out Plaintiffs have been
consolidated before the MDL appointed court, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, and are
pending a determination on cross-motions for summary judgment.

Most of the remaining Opt-Out Plaintiffs are parties to Terrell v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, which matter is stayed.

The Company said, "The range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated
at this time due to the uncertainty surrounding liability."

PRA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries, is a
global financial and business services company with operations in
the Americas and Europe.  The Company's primary business is the
purchase, collection and management of portfolios of nonperforming
loans.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sept. 9 Hearing on Motions in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that in the securities class suit with Norfolk
Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff, a hearing on the plaintiffs'
motions for prejudgment interest and for approval of the
plaintiffs' proposed notice and claims process is scheduled for
September 9, 2019.

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).

On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  A
trial on the claims relating to four statements alleged to have
been false or misleading was held from January 15 to January 29,
2019.

At trial, the jury found that three of the four challenged
statements were not false or misleading, and thus, found in the
defendants' favor on those claims.  The jury found liability as to
one statement and awarded a maximum of US$4.50 per share in
damages, which represents approximately 5% of the total claimed
damages of US$87.20 per share.  The total amount of aggregate
class-wide damages is uncertain and will be ascertained only after
an extensive claims process and the exhaustion of any appeals.
Trading models suggest that approximately ten million shares traded
during the class period may be eligible to claim damages.

Puma Biotechnology said, "Based on prior lawsuits, the Company
believes that the number of stockholders who submit proof of claims
sufficient to recover damages is typically in the range of 20% to
40% of the total eligible shares.  Based on these assumptions,
total damages after claims could range from US$9 million to US$18
million.  It is also reasonably possible that the total damages
will be higher than this estimate, however, at this time, the
amount is not estimable."

On June 14, 2019, the plaintiffs filed motions for prejudgment
interest and for approval of the plaintiffs' proposed notice and
claims process.  A hearing on these motions is scheduled for
September 9, 2019.  A final judgment has not been entered.

Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: $8.15MM Settlement Reached in Lazan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In reference to the case, STEVEN LAZAN and ALEXANDER E. NABHAN,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00923-RS (N.D. Cal.), a notice was served to all persons
who purchased Quantum Corporation common stock during the period
from April 18, 2016 through February 8, 2018, inclusive, and who
were damaged thereby (collectively, the "Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $8,150,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims, both
known and unknown, in the Action.

A hearing will be held on November 14, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., before
the Honorable Richard Seeborg at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal
Building & United States Courthouse, Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine, among
others: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June
28, 2019 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved. [GN]


QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Faces Class Suit over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Quintana Energy Services Inc. still defends itself
from a class action suit alleging violations of state based wage
and hour laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The class action was filed in 2016 relating to non-payment of
overtime pay.  The Company believes its pay practices comply with
the FLSA.

The Company said, "The case is working its way through the various
stages of the legal process, however, management believes the
Company's exposure is not material."

Quintana Energy Services Inc. provides oilfield services to onshore
oil and natural gas exploration and production companies operating
in conventional and unconventional plays in the United States. The
company operates through four segments: Directional Drilling,
Pressure Pumping, Pressure Control, and Wireline. Quintana Energy
Services Inc. was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


RAWLINGS SPORTING: Court Enters Protective Order in Sotelo Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California has entered a Stipulated Protection
Order in the case, RICHARD SOTELO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS
COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09166-GW-MAA (C.D.
Cal.).

Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the parties stipulated to and petitioned the Court to
enter the Stipulated Protective Order.  

The parties acknowledge that the Order does not confer blanket
protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that
the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends
only to the limited information or items that are entitled to
confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles.  They
further acknowledge that the Stipulated Protective Order does not
entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil
Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and
the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission
from the court to file material under seal.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.  However, the
protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order do not cover the
following information: (a) any information that is in the public
domain at the time of disclosure of the Receiving Party or becomes
part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party
as a result of publication not involving a violation of the Order,
including becoming part of the public record through trial or
otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party
prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after
the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully
and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating
Party.

Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the
orders of the trial judge.  The Order does not govern the use of
Protected Material at trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by this Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs.  Final disposition will be deemed to be the
later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action,
with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with a scheduling or
other order of the Court.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.  All Protected Material includes all copies,
abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format
reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material.  

Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the
Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the
Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the
Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by
category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was
returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has
not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any
other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material.

Notwithstanding this provision, the Counsel are entitled to retain
an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial,
deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda,
correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports,
attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even
if such materials contain Protected Material.  Any such archival
copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject
to the Protective Order as set forth.

Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all
appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt
proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3xtdDz from Leagle.com.

Richard Sotelo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carlos M. Jaramillo, Access
Lawyers Group, David R. Shoop, Shoop APLC, Adam R. Gonnelli, The
Sultzer Law Group PC, pro hac vice, Janine L. Pollack, The Sultzer
Law Group PC, pro hac vice, Jason S. Giaimo --
jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin and Stern LLP, pro hac
vice, Lee S. Shalov -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- McLaughlin
and Stern LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas S. Alch --
thomas.alch@shooplaw.com -- Shoop APLC.

Rawlings Sporting Goods Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Eric
Y. Kizirian -- Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard and Smith LLP, Abraham James Spung --
James.Spung@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP, pro hac vice
& Michael R. Annis -- mike.annis@huschblackwell.com -- Husch
Blackwell LLP, pro hac vice.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Acceptance Now Still Defends Russell Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action against a unit, styled Velma Russell v.
Acceptance Now remains ongoing, according to Rent-A-Center, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

This purported class action arising out of calls made by Acceptance
Now to customers' reference (s) was filed on January 29, 2019 in
Massachusetts state court.  Specifically, plaintiffs seek to
certify a class representing any references of customers (within
the state of Massachusetts) during the 4 years prior to the filing
date that were contacted by Acceptance Now more frequently during a
12 month period than is permitted by Massachusetts state law.  The
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and statutory damages of
US$25 per reference which may be tripled to US$75 per reference.

References are not parties to the Company's consumer arbitration
agreement.  The Company operates 12 Acceptance Now locations in
Massachusetts.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these
claims; however, the Company cannot assure you that it will be
found to have no liability in this matter.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis. The
company operates through four segments: Core U.S., Acceptance Now,
Mexico, and Franchising. Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


REPSOL ENERGY: Brady Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Repsol Energy North
America Corporation and Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The case is captioned SCOTT
BRADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. REPSOL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION and REPSOL OIL & GAS
USA, LLC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00881-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 19, 2019).

Plaintiff worked for Repsol as a drilling supervisor. He regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours each week. However, instead of paying
overtime as required by the FLSA and PMWA, Repsol improperly
classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated workers as
independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime
compensation.

Repsol is a global, integrated company at the forefront of the
energy industry operating in over 40 countries and throughout the
United States, including Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 352-1100
     Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
     E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com

             - and –

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

     Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
     GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
     3634 California Ave.
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Telephone: (412) 766-1455
     Facsimile: (412)766-0300
     E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

REWALK ROBOTICS: Briefing in Class Action Appeal Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that with regards to the plaintiff's appeal
from the District Court's dismissal of complaint in a securities
class action in Massachusetts, the plaintiff's appellate brief was
due August 26, 2019 and the Company's opposition is due on
September 25, 2019.

The action commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), was partially dismissed on August 23, 2018.
In particular, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, finding that
the plaintiff failed to plead a false or misleading statement in
the IPO registration statement.  The District Court did not address
the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
because, as a result of the dismissal of the claims under the
Securities Act, the lead plaintiff lacked standing to pursue those
claims.  Because the action in the District Court was styled as a
class action, the District Court permitted the plaintiff to file a
supplemental memorandum concerning standing or a motion to appoint
a substitute or supplemental plaintiff.

On September 10, 2018, the plaintiff sought leave to amend his
complaint to add a new plaintiff that purportedly has standing to
pursue Exchange Act claims, and the Company opposed the motion to
amend on September 24, 2018.

On May 16, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend
and the complaint was dismissed.  Thereafter, the plaintiff timely
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.  The plaintiff's appellate brief is due on August 26, 2019
and the Company's opposition is due on September 25, 2019.

ReWalk Robotics Ltd., a medical device company, designs, develops,
and commercializes exoskeletons for wheelchair-bound individuals
with mobility impairments or other medical conditions. The company
was formerly known as Argo Medical Technologies Ltd. ReWalk
Robotics Ltd. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Yokne'am
Illit, Israel.


ROCKWELL MEDICAL: $3.7MM Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Medical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that on August 7, 2019, all parties to the
shareholder class action entered into a settlement of the case.

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement,
the Company will pay the Plaintiffs US$3.7 million (the "Settlement
Amount") in exchange for a full release of all liability as to all
defendants.  Of the Settlement Amount, the Company will be
contributing approximately US$0.4 million, which represents the
remaining retention amount under the Company's director and officer
liability insurance policy.  The remainder of the settlement amount
will be funded by the Company's director and officer insurance
policy.  The settlement is subject to court review and approval.

On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ah Kit Too filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and former officers,
Robert Chioini and Thomas Klema.  The complaint is a federal
securities class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
the Company between March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018.  The
Complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").  Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that defendants filed reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that contained purported inaccurate and misleading
statements regarding the potential for the Company's drug,
Triferic, to quality for separate reimbursement status by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Spock filed a similar
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Messrs.
Chioini and Klema.  The Spock complaint is a federal securities
class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of
persons who purchased the Company's securities between November 8,
2017 and June 26, 2018.  This complaint alleges that the Company
and Messrs. Chioini and Klema violated the Exchange Act in that the
Company was aware the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
would not pursue the Company's proposal for separate reimbursement
for Triferic; misstated reserves in the Company's quarterly report
for the first quarter of 2018; had a material weakness its internal
controls over financial reporting, which rendered those controls
ineffective; Mr. Chioini withheld material information regarding
Triferic from the Company's auditor, corporate counsel, and
independent directors of the Board; and, as a result of these
alleged issues, statements about the Company's business were
materially false and misleading.

On September 25, 2018, four Company stockholders filed motions to
appoint lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and to consolidate the Ah
Kit Too v. Rockwell securities class action with the Spock v.
Rockwell securities class action.  On October 10, 2018, the court
issued an order consolidating the two actions, appointing co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  On December 10, 2018, lead
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which included
the same allegations as the initial complaints and asserted claims
on behalf of a putative class consisting of person who purchased
the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and June 26,
2018, accordingly.  

Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical
company that targets end-stage renal disease and chronic kidney
disease with therapies and products for the treatment of iron
deficiency and hemodialysis. Rockwell Medical, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is based in Wixom, Michigan.


ROYAL SEAS: Denied Leave to File Amended Answer in McCurley
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN McCURLEY, DAN DEFOREST, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL SEAS
CRUISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Royal's motion for leave to file an amended answer, and submit a
copy of its Proposed First Amended Answer ("PFAA").

In the consolidated case, California resident Plaintiffs McCurley
and DeForest claim that they received calls to their cell phones
for telemarketing purposes placed on behalf of Defendant Royal, a
Florida-based company, without the Plaintiffs' prior express
consent and with the use of an automated telephone dialing system
or pre-recorded voice, in violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  DeForest also claims that the
alleged calls he received violated California's Invasion of Privacy
Act ("CIPA").

Plaintiff McCurley filed his putative nationwide class action
complaint against Royal on May 12, 2017 in the Southern District of
California, solely alleging TCPA claims.  Less than a month later,
Plaintiff DeForest filed his putative nationwide class action
complaint against Royal in the Central District of California,
alleging TCPA and CIPA violations.

Royal answered each complaint on July 28, 2017.  DeForest's case
was transferred to the Southern District and the cases were
consolidated thereafter, both at the parties' request.  The
Plaintiffs filed the consolidated operative Complaint on Dec. 20,
2017.  Like the pre-consolidation pleadings, the Complaint alleges
a putative nationwide TCPA class.  Royal did not move to dismiss,
but instead answered the Complaint on Jan. 8, 2018.

Roughly seven months after Royal's answer, the Plaintiffs moved for
certification of a nationwide TCPA class and a subclass of persons
transferred by non-party Prospects DM to Royal.  Royal filed its
opposition to class certification on Oct. 22, 2018.  In opposition,
Royal raised a Bristol-Myers-based personal jurisdiction defense to
the proposed classes.  To support this argument, Royal directed the
Court to cases in which district courts relied on Bristol-Myers to
dismiss at the pleading stage any claims of the absent non-resident
putative class members against a defendant subject only to specific
jurisdiction in the forum.  And consistent with this argument,
Royal contended that the purported restraints on the Court's
exercise of personal jurisdiction meant that any certified TCPA
classes would need to be limited to California residents.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion, resulting in certification of a nationwide Rule 23(b)(3)
TCPA class and transfer subclass.  In the class certification
order, the Court addressed Royal's personal jurisdiction argument
as a threshold matter before considering whether the proposed
classes satisfied the Rule 23 class certification requirements.
The Court, however, had no occasion to resolve the merits of
Royal's Bristol-Myers Squibbs Company v. Superior Court of
California-based personal jurisdiction argument because the Court
concluded that "Royal has waived any personal jurisdiction
challenge."  It determined that an untimely personal jurisdiction
defense -- regardless of whether it is based on Bristol-Myers -- is
waived at the later stages of a litigation if the defense was not
timely asserted.

Applying these principles, the Court compared the Plaintiffs'
pre-consolidation pleadings and the Complaint -- all of which
alleged a nationwide putative TCPA class -- with Royal's three
answers, including Royal's operative answer filed six months after
Bristol-Myers, and found that none of Royal's defensive moves
raised any personal jurisdiction defense.  Thus, under a
straightforward application of Rule 12(h), Royal has waived its
personal jurisdiction challenge to alleged defects in the Court's
authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over Royal, including
for the purposes of certifying the proposed nationwide classes.
Underscoring that lack of personal jurisdiction is a defense that a
party alone waives through its failure to timely assert the
defense, the Court refused to excuse Royal's failure to timely and
promptly vindicate its own rights to unilaterally strike down
portions of the proposed classes based on an untimely asserted
personal jurisdiction defense.

Royal's present Rule 15(a)(2) request to amend its answer to add a
personal jurisdiction defense comes in the wake of the Court's
reasoned rejection of Royal's opposition argument in the class
certification order, and nearly 16 months after Royal filed its
operative answer.

Royal proposes three amendments, only one of which the Plaintiffs
oppose.  In its first set of proposed amendments, Royal seeks to
amend its prior responses to certain allegations in the operative
Complaint.  Royal also proposes an "affirmative defense" that the
CIPA claims of the putative class have been "waived" as a result of
DeForest's failure to timely move for class certification under the
scheduling order in the case.  The Plaintiffs have not opposed
these amendments.  The Plaintiffs oppose Royal's remaining proposed
amendment in which Royal requests leave to plead an "affirmative
defense" of lack of personal jurisdiction against the claims of
absent out-of-state class members based on Bristol-Myers.

Judge Bashant finds that the Plaintiffs have not opposed to Royals'
first two proposed amendments.  In the absence of any other
countervailing consideration, the Court grants Royal's request
solely for these amendments.  She expresses no view on the merits
of these proposed amendments.

As to the proposed third amendment, the Judge holds that for
reasons that should be abundantly clear, Royal cannot rely on a
Rule 15(a)(2) motion to resurrect its waived personal jurisdiction
defense.  Royal's new argument that it could not have waived a
defense against the claims of "newly joined" absent non-California
class members leads the Court to deny Royal's request because the
proposed amendment is otherwise sought in bad faith and is futile.

For the foregoing reasons, she granted in part and denied in part
Royal's motion for leave to file an amended answer.  Royal may file
an amended answer that includes any approved amendments no later
than July 16, 2019.  The Court will sua sponte strike from any
amended answer amendments that do not comply with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/abG9T3 from Leagle.com.

John McCurley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian
Law Group, APC, Joshua B. Swigart -- Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
-- Hyde & Swigart, Kevin Lemieux -- kevin@westcoastlitigation.com
-- The Law Office of Kevin Lemieux, APC, Matthew M. Loker,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd
M.
Friedman, P.C.

Dan Deforest, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian R. Bacon, The Law
Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Kevin Lemieux, The Law Office of
Kevin Lemieux, APC, Matthew M. Loker, Kazerouni Law Group, APC,
Meghan George, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman & Todd M. Friedman,
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anton N.
Handal
-- tony.handal@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder LLP, Brian R.
Cummings -- brian.cummings@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder P.A.,
pro
hac vice, Jeffrey A. Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com --
Greenspoon Marder P.A., pro hac vice, Richard W. Epstein --
Richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac vice
& Lauren Gail Kane -- lauren.kane@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder
LLP.


S.B.C. NORTHWEST: Ware Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAVONNELL WARE, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly  Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. S.B.C. NORTHWEST L.L.C.,
and JOSEPH WALKER, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01300 (W.D.
Wash., Aug. 19, 2019), seeks minimum wages, house fee charges,
tips, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required and/or
permitted Ware and others similarly situated to work as exotic
dancers at their adult entertainment club but refused to compensate
them at the applicable minimum wage.

In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate them whatsoever for
any hours worked. Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of
tips from club patrons, and even tips were partly confiscated by
the club.

The Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house
fees" or "rent". The Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips
with Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily
receive tips.

The Defendants misclassify dancers, including Plaintiffs, as
independent contractors so that they do not have to compensate them
at the federally mandated minimum wage rate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Paul S. Woods, Esq.
          THE PAUL WOODS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98154
          E-mail: paul@paulwoodslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Mexican Bonds Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit styled In re Mexican Government
Bonds Antitrust Litigation is still pending.

The consolidated purported antitrust class action is pending in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
captioned In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:18-cv-02830-JPO (the "MGB Lawsuit").

The MGB Lawsuit is against the Company, Santander Investment
Securities Inc. (SIS), Santander, Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A.
Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero Santander and
Santander Investment Bolsa, Sociedad de Valores, S.A. on behalf of
a class of persons who entered into Mexican government bond ("MGB")
transactions between January 1, 2006 and April 19, 2017, where such
persons were either domiciled in the United States or, if domiciled
outside the United States, transacted in the United States.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Santander
defendants and the other defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by
conspiring to rig auctions and/or fix prices of MGBs.

On September 17, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Puerto Rico Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case
styled Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243,
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico, according to Santander Holdings USA, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Santander Securities LLC (SSLLC), Santander BanCorp, Banco
Santander Puerto Rico (BSPR), the Company and Banco Santander, S.A.
(Santander) are defendants in a putative class action alleging
federal securities and common law claims relating to the
solicitation and purchase of more than US$180.0 million of Puerto
Rico bonds and US$101.0 million of CEFs during the period from
December 2012 to October 2013.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to
defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of
Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds.  In May 2019,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Court Approves Settlement in Parmelee Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that an order approving the settlement
of the action styled Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al. was entered in June 2019.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in two purported
securities class action lawsuits filed in March and April 2016 in
the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas.  The
lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.  The
lawsuits were filed against SC and certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC
securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

The complaint alleges that SC violated federal securities laws by
making false or misleading statements, as well as failing to
disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and certain other public disclosures, in connection
with, among other things, SC's change in its methodology for
estimating its ACL and the correction of such ACL for prior
periods.

In March 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
In January 2018, the court granted SC's motion as to defendant
Ismail Dawood (SC's former Chief Financial Officer) and denied the
motion as to all other defendants.

In July 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit
for a cash payment of US$9.5 million.  In September 2018, the court
entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement of the lawsuit.  An order approving the settlement
was entered in June 2019.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Discovery in Deka Securities Suit Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that the merits discovery in the action
captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. et al., is still stayed until the court rules on the
issue of class certification.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. (SC) is a defendant in a purported
securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 2014, was brought
against SC, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in SC's initial public offering (the "IPO"), including
SIS, on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired SC securities between January 23, 2014 and June
12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning SC's ability to pay dividends and
the adequacy of SC's compliance systems and oversight.

In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the lawsuit, which was denied.  In December 2016, the plaintiffs
moved to certify the proposed classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit but ordered that merits discovery be stayed until the court
ruled on the issue of class certification.

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Santander Bank, National Association that provides various banking
products and services primarily in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Santander Holdings USA,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Santander, S.A.


SECURITY BENEFIT: Court Dismisses SAC in Ogles RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALBERT OGLES, Plaintiff, v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-02265-HLT-KGG
(D. Kan.), Judge Holly L. Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
operative second amended complaint.

Ogles filed the civil action alleging violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and a state-law
claim for unjust enrichment.  Security Benefit Corp. is an
insurance company based in Topeka, Kansas.  Guggenheim Partners,
LLC, and Guggenheim Investment bought Security Benefit Life
Insurance Co. and Security Benefit Corp. in 2010 and went to work
making Security Benefit into a competitive player in the
fixed-index annuity market.  This dispute stems from Ogles's
purchase of an annuity from Security Benefit in July 2012 -- in
particular his purchase of a Total Value Annuity ("TVA"), which is
a type of fixed-index annuity.  The TVA has been very profitable
for Security Benefit.

Ogles purchased the TVA in Alabama in July 2012 for approximately
$145,000 and allocated 100% of his funds to the Annuity Linked TVI
Index ("ALTVI"), which was one of the available crediting options.
Under the terms of the TVA, the annuity would be held for five
years before any crediting occurred, presuming the index's
performance warranted crediting.  But at the end of that period,
Ogles learned that the Five Year Annuity Linked TVI Index Account
Rider failed to produce any interest credits or to otherwise
perform consistent with the uniform representations made.  The
failure to produce interest credits is the source of Ogles's
alleged damages.  

There are no allegations that Ogles's initial investment of
$145,000 was depleted.  The claims center on whether the TVA had an
inherently diminished value due to an allegedly fraudulent design,
and thus was not worth the $145,000 investment.  Ogles also
received a 10% bonus allocation on his principal, though at oral
argument Ogles counsel stated that the bonus would be forfeited if
the annuity funds were withdrawn within the first 10 years.

Ogles has now sued under RICO alleging that the true nature,
development, and potential of the TVA and ALTVI were
misrepresented, as was Security Benefit's true financial condition,
and therefore he was damaged in that the annuity he purchased was
worth less than the premium he paid for it.

Ogles' second amended complaint asserts RICO claims against all
Defendants, alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and
(d).  Ogles also asserts of claim of unjust enrichment against
Guggenheim.

The Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the operative second
amended complaint.  Both Security Benefit and Guggenheim argue that
Ogles's RICO claim is reverse-preempted under the McCarran-Ferguson
Act, and that Ogles has failed to state a claim under either RICO
or for unjust enrichment.  The Court heard oral argument on May 16,
2019.

Judge Teeter finds the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempts
Ogles' RICO claim as to his financial-strength theory, and it is
dismissed.  Notably, although Ogles disputes that Ludwick v.
Harbinger Group, Inc. should apply, he does not explain how his
financial-strength RICO theory could be evaluated without
interfering with, or at least second-guessing, the decisions of
state insurance regulators, who have already signed off on those
transactions.  Instead, he claims that the Court could absolutely
determine that Mr. Ogles and other class members were defrauded
based on false representations that induced them into purchasing
the fixed index annuities at issue without passing any judgment on
the Kansas insurance regulators.  The Judge first notes that Ogles'
argument on this point consists of one case cite and no
elaboration.  Second, the court in Ludwick rejected a similar
argument.

The Judge has carefully reviewed Ogles' second amended complaint.
His claim that the TVA was fraudulently designed or "rigged" is
simply not supported by any well-pleaded factual allegations.  Even
if she accepted Ogles' premise that he only needs to plead the
existence of a scheme to defraud to show mail and wire fraud, the
Judge would not conclude that he had done so.  At most, the
allegations are "merely consistent with a defendant's liability"
but "stop short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief."  Even if Ogles could muster plausibility,
the allegations of mail and wire fraud would still fall far short
of particularity.  Indeed, the Judge has been hard-pressed to find
any misrepresentations, let alone the particularized time, place,
and content allegations that could support a claim of mail or wire
fraud.  Without that, there is no plausible RICO claim alleged
under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c).  She therefore grants both the
Defendants' motions to dismiss as to Ogles's RICO claims.

The Judge has dismissed Ogles' federal RICO claim in its entirety.
Guggenheim's motion to dismiss raises arguments in favor of
dismissal of Ogles's unjust-enrichment claim, including that
Ogles's claim is time-barred under Kansas law and that Kansas law
does not permit an unjust-enrichment claim to be based on conferral
of an indirect benefit.  These arguments raise questions of purely
state law.  Given these considerations, and given the early stage
of this litigation, the Judge declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Ogles' state-law unjust-enrichment claim.  It is
accordingly dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

For the reasons she provided, Judge Teeter granted both the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.  Specifically, Count One of the
second amended complaint under RICO is dismissed for failure to
state a claim.  Count Two of the second amended complaint for
unjust enrichment is dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/KMiPVM from Leagle.com.

Albert Ogles, Plaintiff, represented by Courtney Cooper Gipson --
cgipson@mtattorneys.com -- Methvin Terrell Yancey Stephens &
Miller, P.C., pro hac vice, Eric D. Barton, Wagstaff & Cartmell,
LLP, James M. Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PC, pro hac
vice, P. Michael Yancey, Methvin Terrell Yancey Stephens & Miller,
P.C., pro hac vice, Robert G. Methvin, Jr. -- rgm@mtattorneys.com
-- Methvin Terrell Yancey Stephens & Miller, P.C., pro hac vice,
Sarah S. Ruane, Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP & Tyler W. Hudson --
THUDSON@WCLLP.COM -- Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP.

Security Benefit Life Insurance Company & Security Benefit
Corporation, Defendants, represented by Anthony F. Rupp --
trupp@foulston.com -- Foulston Siefkin LLP, Gillian H. Clow --
gillian.clow@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice, Holly
A. Dyer -- hdyer@foulston.com -- Foulston Siefkin LLP, Robert D.
Phillips, Jr., Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice & Samuel J. Park --
samuel.park@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice.

Guggenheim Partners, LLC & Guggenheim Investments, also known as
Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Dan K. Webb, Winston & Strawn, pro hac vice, Kerry
C. Donovan, Winston & Strawn, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Abrams,
Lathrop Gage, LLP, Robert Kent Sellers, Lathrop Gage, LLP & Todd
Jay Ehlman, Winston & Strawn, LLP, pro hac vice.


SERVICESOURCE INT' L: Settlement Amounts to be Paid in Phases
-------------------------------------------------------------
ServiceSource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
amounts in the settlement in the class action suit initiated by
Sarah Patton will be paid in phases.

On August 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee granted conditional class certification in a
lawsuit originally filed on September 21, 2015 by three former
senior sales representatives.

The lawsuit, Sarah Patton, et al v. ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.,
asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that
certain non-exempt employees in our Nashville location were not
paid for all hours worked and were not properly paid for overtime
hours worked.  

The complaint also asserts claims under Tennessee state law for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment; and, on September 28,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the state law breach
of contract and unjust enrichment claims as a class action.

A settlement of all claims has been reached and the settlement
amounts will be paid in phases.

The Company anticipates settlement payments will be completed by
the end of 2019.

ServiceSource International, Inc. operates as a digital customer
journey experience company. Its solutions include lead generation,
inside sales, outsourced sales operations, customer onboarding,
customer success management, cross-sell and upsell, warranty
conversion, account-based marketing, and channel recruitment and
enablement, as well as renewals management services, such as the
sale of maintenance and support service contracts for the products
used by its clients' end-users. ServiceSource International, Inc.
was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Enters Protective Order in Arreola Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN A. ARREOLA, an individual, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHAMROCK FOODS
COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04123-JAK-MAA (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has entered the parties' Stipulated Protective Order.

Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary or private information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the parties stipulated to and petitioned the Court to
enter the Stipulated Protective Order.  They acknowledge that the
Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or
responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from
public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information
or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the
applicable legal principles.  They further acknowledge that the
Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file
confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets
forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that
will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to
file material under seal.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.  Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge.  The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by this Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs.  Final disposition will be deemed to be the
later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action,
with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.  All Protected Material includes all copies,
abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format
reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material.  Whether
the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving
Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party
(and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party)
by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where
appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or
destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained
any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format
reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material.  

Notwithstanding that provision, the Counsel are entitled to retain
an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial,
deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda,
correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports,
attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even
if such materials contain Protected Material.  Any such archival
copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject
to the Protective Order.

Any violation of the Order may be punished by appropriate measures
including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary
sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Stipulated Protective
Order is available at https://is.gd/V91alD from Leagle.com.

Steven A. Arreola, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darren M. Cohen --
dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley and Kingsley APC & Eric B.
Kingsley, Kingsley and Kingsley APC.

Shamrock Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Sommer
-- asommer@connmaciel.com -- Conn Maciel Carey LLP & Megan Stevens
Shaked -- mshaked@connmaciel.com -- Conn Maciel Carey LLP.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Class Action Waiver in Taylor Suit Not Enforceable
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that an arbitrator has ruled
that the class action waiver contained in the Company's terms of
use was not enforceable and remanded the case, Taylor v.
Shutterfly, Inc., back to U.S. federal district court.

On December 12, 2017, Megan Taylor filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of herself and other customers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresents a deal it
currently offers through Groupon because it does not allow
purchasers of the Groupon offer to combine or "stack" it with other
promotional codes offered by the Company. The Company successfully
compelled the matter to private arbitration.

On July 11, 2019, the arbitrator ruled that the class action waiver
contained in the Company's terms of use was not enforceable and
remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman on August 19 entered separate orders
setting a case management conference for September 12; and granting
Plaintiff's motion to confirm arbitration decision and lift stay.

Taylor is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products
primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community.
The company operates through three reportable segments: Shutterfly
Consumer, Lifetouch, and Shutterfly Business Solutions. Shutterfly,
Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City,
California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Davis Class Suit Against Lifetouch Unit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Lifetouch, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Antonio Davis v. Lifetouch, Inc.

On March 10, 2019, Antonio Davis filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of himself and other Lifetouch customers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The complaint alleges that Lifetouch violated Kansas consumer
protection statutes prohibiting the sale of unsolicited goods.
Davis is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products
primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community.
The company operates through three reportable segments: Shutterfly
Consumer, Lifetouch, and Shutterfly Business Solutions. Shutterfly,
Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City,
California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Suits Filed Challenging Photo Holdings Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in several class action suits related to its
merger agreement with Photo Holdings, LLC and Photo Holdings Merger
Sub, Inc.

On June 10, 2019, the company entered into the Merger Agreement
with Photo Holdings, LLC and Photo Holdings Merger Sub, Inc., both
of which are affiliates of the Apollo Funds, certain funds managed
by affiliates of Apollo, a private equity investment firm.

On July 26, 2019, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court, District of Delaware,
against the Company and the individual members of the Company's
Board of Directors, captioned Wolf v. Shutterfly, Inc. et al., (the
"Wolf Complaint").

On July 29, 2019, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against the Company and the individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors, captioned Gordon v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
et al., (the "Gordon Complaint").

On July 31, 2019 and August 5, 2019, a putative stockholder class
action complaint was filed in each of the San Mateo County Superior
Court and the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, respectively, against the Company and the individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors, each captioned Cheung
v. Shutterfly, Inc., et al., (the "Cheung Complaints" and
collectively with the Stein Complaint, Spurlock Complaint, Wolf
Complaint and the Gordon Complaint, the "Stockholder Complaints").


Each of the Stockholder Complaints asserts that defendants violated
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and certain rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder by making untrue statements of
material fact and omitting certain material facts related to the
contemplated Transaction in the relevant proxy statement or in the
case of the Cheung complaint filed in San Mateo County, that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in their capacities as
officers or directors of the Company.

The Stockholder Complaints seek, among other things, an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the Transaction, money
damages and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend those actions.

The Company may become subject to similar litigation relating to
the Transaction in these or other jurisdictions.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products
primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community.
The company operates through three reportable segments: Shutterfly
Consumer, Lifetouch, and Shutterfly Business Solutions. Shutterfly,
Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City,
California.


SIENTRA INC: MOU Reached in Hartsock Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that it has entered into a memorandum
of understanding for the collective settlement of the consolidated
class action suit entitled, Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.  The settlement is pending court
approval.

On November 15, 2016, the action styled Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 21, 2016 in the
United States District Court, Central District of California; Case
No. 2:16-cv-07074) was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada.  The parties have stipulated to a
consolidation of the Ayeni Action with the action styled Glen
Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September
28, 2016 in the United States District Court, District Court of
Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF).

These class action lawsuits allege that the Company and certain of
the Company's executive officers made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's business and the prospects of approval for the Company's
New Drug Application to the FDA for QAPZOLA in violation of Section
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On July 23, 2019, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with these plaintiffs for a collective settlement
that is pending court approval.  The value of this proposed
settlement is included within "other receivables" and "accounts
payable and other accrued liabilities" on the Company's June 30,
2019 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops and commercializes oncology
and hematology drug products. he company was formerly known as
NeoTherapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in December 2002. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Henderson,
Nevada.


SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Carman Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Signature
Healthcare, LLC, Stakeholder Payroll Services, LLC and LP Calhoun,
LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The case is captioned ANASTASIA
CARMAN, on Behalf of herself and All Others Similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE, LLC, STAKEHOLDER PAYROLL
SERVICES, LLC and LP CALHOUN, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00087-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., July 19, 2019). Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants did not include the "Sign-On Bonus" in
calculating Plaintiff's overtime rate of pay, and therefore failed
to pay Plaintiff the overtime rate of pay to which she was entitled
under the FLSA.

Signature Healthcare, LLC, Stakeholder Payroll Services, LLC and LP
Calhoun, LLC are engaged in the business of operating
rehabilitation, nursing and long-term care facilities, including
one known as Riverside Care & Rehabilitation Center in Calhoun,
McLean County, Kentucky. According to their websites, these
companies operate 114 other similar facilities in 10 states, and
employ approximately 17,000 employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark N. Foster, Esq.
     Law Office of Mark N. Foster, PLLC
     P.O. Box 869
     Madisonville, KY 42431
     Telephone: (270) 213-1303
     E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com

SIGNET JEWELERS: Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SIGNET JEWELERS LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 16 Civ. 6728 (CM) (RWL) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Colleen McMahon
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The putative securities fraud class action is typical in all
respects save one: it is really two securities fraud class actions
that have been joined in a single complaint, because two entirely
separate sets of non-disclosures occurred during the same time
period.  This irregularity makes the case somewhat unique but --
despite suggestions to the contrary -- far from extraordinary.

Before and during the class period, Signet operated an in-house
credit program, run through its wholly owned subsidiary, Sterling
Jewelers, Inc., whereby it extended credit to its customers for
jewelry purchases.  Over the course of the Class Period, Signet's
credit program was the subject of extensive public disclosures,
which included key metrics associated with the program (e.g.,
accounts receivable, allowances for credit losses, charge offs, and
net bad debt expense figures) and Signet's methods for calculating
those numbers.

The Defendants also represented at various points -- both orally
and in Signet's SEC filings -- that they closely monitored Signet's
lending operation, and that its credit portfolio was healthy.
Among other things, the Defendants repeatedly characterized
Signet's credit program as "strong" or "very strong"; described the
portfolio as being "conservatively managed," "so well managed," and
"watched very closely"; and stated that the company "does not push
the credit" on its customers, and that it "would never cross that
line."  The Defendants further conveyed the purported strength of
Signet's loan portfolio by reporting very low loan loss reserves
throughout the Class Period -- ranging from 6.5% to 7.8% of
Signet's receivables -- which allegedly enabled Signet to meet
earnings estimates for eleven straight fiscal quarters.

According to the Plaintiff, these representations were false or
misleading, because Signet's underwriting practices were, in fact,
reckless, and its loan portfolio was of exceedingly poor quality.
In addition to these allegations regarding Signet's underwriting
processes, the Plaintiff also alleges that Signet materially
understated the reserves for its loan portfolio and its related bad
debt expenses, thereby materially overstating its income.  Central
to their fraud, the Plaintiff submits, was the company's decision
to use a less common method for aging accounts receivable called
the "recency" method.  According to the Plaintiff, using the
recency method enabled the Defendants to disguise the risk
associated with Signet's credit portfolio.

On March 22, 2018, Lead Plaintiff the Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi filed the Fifth Amended Complaint ("FAC"),
the operative complaint in the action, against Defendants Signet
and five of Signet's corporate officers, including former CEO and
director Michael Barnes; former CEO and director Mark Light;
current CEO and director Virginia Drosos; former CFO Ronald Ristau.
It alleged that the Defendants were liable for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Act based upon the
events described.

On Nov. 26, 2016, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  On June 11, 2019, the Court denied their motion for
judgment on the pleadings with respect to certain allegations of
securities fraud arising from statements contained in Signet's code
of conduct.  Nine days later, the Court denied their motion for
reconsideration of the Court's decision and order denying their
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Plaintiff now moves to certify a class of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities issued by
Signet during the period from Aug. 29, 2013 through March 13, 2018,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

Judge McMahon holds that the proposed class satisfies the standards
for certification pursuant to Rule 23(a).  She finds that the
Plaintiff has established numerosity, commonality, typicality,
adequacy of representation, and ascertainability.  The Judge
further holds that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3).  She finds that the Plaintiff has established that
(i) common questions predominate, and (ii) class certification is
the superior method for adjudicating the case.

Based on the foregoing, Judge McMahon granted the Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class in accordance with her Opinion.  She
modified the Class to encompass all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Signet common stock from Aug. 29,
2013 to May 25, 2017.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed
to close Dkt. No. 142.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/XsaLCv from Leagle.com.

Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by Brenna D. Nelinson -- brenna.nelinson@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Gerald H. Silk --
jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
John James Rizio-Hamilton -- johnr@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Michael Madakacherry Mathai --
michael.mathai@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, Rebecca Ellen Boon -- Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Jason Matthew Kirschberg --
jason@gadowtyler.com -- Gadow Tyler, PLLC.

Susan Dube, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Austin Patrick Van, Pomerantz
LLP, Garth Avery Spencer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert
Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Tamar Aliza Weinrib,
Pomerantz LLP.

Lyubomir Spasov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Austin Patrick Van, Pomerantz
LLP, Garth Avery Spencer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP,
Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Vincent
Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Tamar Aliza Weinrib,
Pomerantz LLP.

Nebil Aydin, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Heather Salway, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen
Law Firm P.A.

Norfolk County Council as Administering Authority of the Norfolk
Pension Fund, Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Signet Jewelers Limited, Mark Light, Michele Santana, Michael
Barnes, Ronald Ristau & Virginia C. Drosos, Defendants, represented
by Joseph S. Allerhand -- joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP & Stacy Nettleton -- stacy.nettleton@weil.com
-- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

Maria Mikolchak, Interested Party, represented by Phillip C. Kim,
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement System, Intervenor,
represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


SIRIUS XM: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Andrews Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES E. ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.;
DOES, 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
18-55169 (9th Cir.), Judge Milan Dale Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's (i)
grant of summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM, and (ii) denial of
Andrews' motion to amend his complaint to add a claim under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA").

On Jan. 14, 2017, Andrews purchased a pre-owned 2012 Chevy Equinox
from Auto Source, a small used car lot in Banning, California.  He
presented the dealership with his California driver's license, from
which it obtained his name and PO Box address.  He also filled out
a California DMV Form 262 -- "Vehicle/Vessel Transfer and
Reassignment Form" -- a multipurpose form that serves as an
odometer disclosure, bill of sale, and power of attorney.  On the
Form 262, Andrews provided his telephone number, street address, PO
Box, and name. Auto Source input this information into its dealer
management system ("DMS"), which ran on a database platform
operated by a third party, AutoManager.

Andrews's Equinox came equipped with Sirius XM radio, a
subscription-based satellite radio service.  Gail Berger, Sirius
XM's VP of Auto Remarketing, attested that her company has
agreements with thousands of automotive dealerships across the
country pursuant to which Sirius XM offers trial subscriptions for
pre-owned vehicles and, in return, dealers provide Sirius XM with
the names and addresses of customers who purchase or lease
XM-equipped vehicles.  According to Berger, Auto Source enrolled in
Sirius XM's pre-owned program in 2015.  The terms of the agreement
provided that Sirius XM requires the use of data that exists in
Auto Source's DMS.  A separate agreement between Sirius XM and
AutoManager specified that this information included "Customer
Data."

Berger stated that, following Andrews' purchase, AutoManager
provided Sirius XM with a record of the sale. This electronic
record included his name and street address.  According to a Sirius
XM manager, however, Andrews' PO Box was not provided by
AutoManager; instead, Sirius XM obtained that information through a
separate contractor that used the U.S. Postal Service's National
Change of Address database.  Andrews asserted that he gave neither
Auto Source nor anyone else permission to share his personal
information with Sirius XM.

Within days of Andrews's purchase, the deluge began.  Sirius XM
sent various letters to Andrews' PO Box between January and August
2017, imploring him -- "We Want You Back!" -- to resume his Sirius
XM service after the subscription included with his car purchase
ended.  Sirius XM also telephoned him for the same purpose.

On Aug. 24, 2017, Andrews filed a putative class action complaint
in the district court, alleging violations of the  Driver's Privacy
Protection Act of 1994 ("DPPA") and seeking an injunction and
statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation.

In his complaint, Andrews -- apparently unaware of the agreements
between Auto Source, AutoManager, and Sirius XM pursuant to which
his personal information was shared -- alleged that Sirius XM
"obtained his name and address, as well as his phone number, from
the motor vehicle records, most likely the registration documents
submitted to the DMV after he purchased the car.  Prior to filing
its motion for summary judgment, Sirius XM's counsel explained to
the Andrews' counsel that, contrary to Andrews' allegations, it had
obtained his personal information not from the DMV, but instead
from Auto Source and the Change of Address database.  Subsequently,
Andrews moved to file an amended complaint to add a claim for
violation of the CFAA, based on Sirius XM's access to Auto Source's
DMS.

The district court granted Sirius XM's motion for summary judgment,
and denied Andrews' motion to file an amended complaint.  As to the
DPPA claim, the court determined, like the Supreme Court and the
vast majority of other courts to have analyzed the issue, that the
DPPA's definition of 'motor vehicle record' requires that the DMV
be the source of the 'record.'  Because the court found that Sirius
XM obtained Andrews' personal information from his driver's license
and the Form 262, it concluded that the undisputed facts establish
that Sirius XM did not 'use' 'personal information' 'from a motor
vehicle record,' and that Sirius XM was therefore entitled to
summary judgment on the DPPA claim.  

Turning to Andrews's motion for leave to amend, the district court
concluded that amendment would be futile because the proposed
amended complaint "failed to allege that he had suffered a 'loss'
or 'damage' cognizable under the CFAA."

The timely appeal followed.  Andrews contends that the district
court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM,
arguing that the company violated the DPPA's prohibition on using
and disclosing personal information derived from DMV records when
it obtained his name, address, and phone number from his driver's
license and the Form 262.  He urges us to "issue a limited ruling
holding that where a plaintiff can establish that a third party
accessed a report containing information from a driver's license
issued by a state DMV the plaintiff can state a claim for violation
of the DPPA.

Judge Smith declines to adopt such a holding, and instead concludes
that Sirius XM's conduct fell outside the scope of the DPPA.
Sirius XM correctly observes that the DPPA was not designed to
remedy every misuse of personal information that happened to come
from a driver's license.  Instead, its scope is limited to
impermissible disclosures by state DMVs to those who seek
information from them.  Andrews concedes that neither Sirius XM nor
anyone else requested or acquired his information from the
California DMV.  Therefore, the Judge concludes that Sirius XM's
conduct, annoying as it might have been, did not violate the DPPA.

Andrews also challenges the district court's conclusion that
amending his complaint to add a claim under the CFAA would have
been futile.  The Judge finds that the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it concluded that an amendment adding a CFAA
claim to Andrews's complaint would have been futile.  He observes
that the CFAA is "an anti-hacking statute," not "an expansive
misappropriation statute."  The statute's "loss" definition clearly
limits its focus to harms caused by computer intrusions, not
general injuries unrelated to the hacking itself.  Given this
circumscribed focus, and the principle that "a general statutory
term should be understood in light of the specific terms that
surround it," the Judge will not expand the CFAA's limited
conception of loss to include the sort of injury pleaded in
Andrews' proposed amended complaint.

Judge Smith holds that the legislative history of the DPPA, and the
decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting it, demonstrate that
the purpose of the statute was to prevent the acquisition and
exploitation of personal information from the records of state
DMVs.  He therefore concludes that Sirius XM did not violate the
DPPA when it used personal information obtained from Andrews'
driver's license.  He further concludes that, given the CFAA's
limited conception of loss, the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Andrews leave to amend on futility
grounds.

Accordingly, he affirmed the district court's (i) grant of summary
judgment in favor of Sirius XM, and (ii) denial of Andrews' motion
to amend his complaint to add a claim under the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act ("CFAA").

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/bZCvqf from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Wilens (argued) -- jeff@lakeshorelaw.org -- Lakeshore Law
Center, Yorba Linda, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Shay Dvoretzky (argued) and Jeffrey R. Johnson --
jeffreyjohnson@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; Thomas
Demitrack -- tdemitrack@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Cleveland, Ohio;
Lee A. Armstrong -- laarmstrong@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, New
York, New York; for Defendants-Appellees.


SKECHERS USA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, In Re Skechers Securities
Litigation (formerly Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund v. Skechers
USA, Inc. Robert Greenberg, David Weinberg, and John Vandemore), is
ongoing.

On September 4, 2018, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund filed a
securities class action on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased the company’s stock
between October 20, 2017, and July 19, 2018 (the "Class Period"),
against the company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case
number 1:18-cv-8039.  

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the company
made materially false statements or omissions of material fact
regarding the company's sales growth and controlling expenses and
asserts claims for unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  

Beginning October 17, 2018, copycat cases were filed and on January
22, 2019, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed
as In Re Skechers Securities Litigation.  

On May 13, 2019, the company filed a motion dismiss the complaint.
On June 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition, and on July 29,
2019, the company filed a reply.  

Skechers said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend
to defend these matters vigorously. Given the early stages of these
proceedings and the limited information available, we cannot
predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or whether an
adverse result in these cases would have a material adverse impact
on our operations or financial position."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Class Cert. Hearing in Wilk Suit Set for Nov. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the deadline for the
Class Certification/MSJ Hearing in Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A.,
Inc. , is set on November 4, 2019.

On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative collective
action lawsuit against the company in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
5:18-cv-01921, alleging violations of the California Labor Code,
including unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and
unfair business practices. The complaint seeks actual,
compensatory, special and general damages; penalties and liquidated
damages; restitutionary and injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and
costs; and interest as permitted by law.  

On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part, plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action. On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the
court an agreed upon notice to be sent to members of the
collective.  

The parties are also considering delaying the mailing of the
Belaire West privacy opt out notice and the taking of several
depositions until after mediation.  

Currently, the deadline for the Class Certification/MSJ Hearing is
November 4, 2019, the Final Pretrial Conference is December 23,
2019, and trial is set for January 7, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.  

Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Hearing on Bid to Compel Arbitration Set for Oct. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the hearing on the
motion to compel arbitration in the class suit entitled, Jose
Zavala Guzman v. Team One Employment Specialists, Skechers USA,
Inc. et. al., is set for October 22, 2019.

On April 2, 2019, Jose Guzman, a Team One employee, filed a class
action lawsuit against Team One and the company in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles County, Case No.
19STCV11006.  

The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations, and seeks
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and
restitution.  

This complaint was followed by a Private Attorney General's Act
Notice, specifying the same allegations raised in the complaint.
This matter was tendered to the company's insurance carrier, and we
are currently investigating the allegations.  

Co-defendant Team-One has filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which the company has joined in.  

The hearing is set for October 22, 2019 and the matter is otherwise
stayed until then.  

Skechers said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an
adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results
of operations or financial position, we believe that we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKECHERS USA: Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend class action suit entitled, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Plan v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg and David Weinberg.

On October 20, 2017, the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan filed
a securities class action, on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of other shareholders who purchased Skechers stock in a
five-month period in 2015, against the company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, case number 1:17-cv-08107.  

On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint and on July 24, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended
and consolidated complaint.  

The lawsuit alleges that, between April 23 and October 22, 2015,
the company made materially false statements or omissions of
material fact about the anticipated performance of the company's
Domestic Wholesale segment and asserts claims for unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief based on two counts
for alleged violations of federal securities laws.  

On November 21, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On January 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition and on February
11, 2019, the company filed a reply. There is no date set for a
hearing or decision.  

Skechers said, "Given the early stage of this proceeding and the
limited information available, we cannot predict the outcome of
this legal proceeding or whether an adverse result in this case
would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial
position.  We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
defend this matter vigorously."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SPIN THE PLANET: Ost Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spin the Planet, Inc.
et al. The case is captioned as Christine Ost, on behalf of herself
and all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Spin
the Planet, Inc.; STP JJ Team I, LLC, d/b/a Spin the Planet
Enterprises, d/b/a Jimmy John's; WTE, Inc.; and Daniel
Vansteenberg, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11720-JGD (D. Mass.,
Aug. 8, 2019). The suit alleges labor-related violation demanding
$75,000 worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Judith G. Dein.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536-1800
          Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Ryan A. Rucki, Esq.
          TORRES, SCAMMON
          HINCKS & DAY, LLP
          35 India Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 307-4426
          Facsimile: (617) 553-4968
          E-mail: rrucki@tshdlegal.com

STONEMOR PARTNERS: Bid for 3rd Cir. Rehearing in Anderson Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
StoneMor Partners L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that in the action styled Anderson v. StoneMor
Partners, LP, et al., the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing by the
entire Third Circuit regarding the court's affirmation of the
dismissal of the case remains pending.

The Third Circuit previously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs'
case on June 20, 2019, and the plaintiffs filed the petition for
rehearing in July.

The case is styled Anderson v. StoneMor Partners, LP, et al., No.
2:16-cv-6111, filed on November 21, 2016, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs in this case (as well as Klein v. StoneMor Partners,
LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-6275, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 2, 2016,
which has been consolidated with this case) brought an action on
behalf of a putative class of the holders of Partnership units and
allege that the Partnership made misrepresentations to investors in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by, among other things and in general, failing to clearly disclose
the use of proceeds from debt and equity offerings by making
allegedly false or misleading statements concerning (a) the
Partnership's strength or health in connection with a particular
quarter's distribution announcement, (b) the connection between
operations and distributions and (c) the Partnership's use of cash
from equity offerings and its credit facility.

Plaintiffs sought damages from the Partnership and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of the class of Partnership
unitholders, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

Lead plaintiffs have been appointed in this case, and filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 24, 2017.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 8, 2017.  The motion was granted on October 31,
2017, and the court entered judgment dismissing the case on
November 30, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 29, 2017.  Oral
argument was held before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on November 1, 2018.

On June 20, 2019, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
plaintiffs' case.  On July 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a
petition to have the appeal reheard by the entire Third Circuit;
this petition is currently before the Third Circuit for decision.

StoneMor Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates cemeteries and funeral homes in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Cemetery Operations and Funeral Home
Operations. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Trevose, Pennsylvania.


SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Sunlands Technology Group (STG)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Sunlands's March 2018 initial public stock offering
(the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Sunlands investors under the federal securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 26, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the case go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=sunlands-technology-group&id=1924
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at
800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Sunlands's student enrollment was declining; (2)
Sunlands's gross billings were declining; (3) Sunlands's marketing
tactics were not as robust as described in the Registration
Statement; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
Sunlands's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


SWITCH INC: Court Narrows Claims in M. Cai Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MINGBO CAI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SWITCH, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01471-JCM-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge James
C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (i)
adopted in part and rejected in part Magistrate Judge Cam
Ferenbach's report and recommendation; (ii) granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to strike; and (iii) granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Farach has brought forth this putative securities class action
challenging Switch's failure to include certain information in the
registration statement and prospectus that Switch issued in
connection with its initial public offering ("IPO"). (ECF No. 58).
The amended complaint contains the following allegations:

Switch is a Nevada corporation that hosts data centers and provides
to its customers's colocation, telecommunications, cloud, and
content ecosystems services.  Most of Switch's revenue comes from
colocation services, which amounted to 81.4% of total revenue in
fiscal year 2016.  Colocation services are rental agreements where
customers lease information technology infrastructure, such as
servers and storage hardware, to avoid the cost of establishing and
maintaining their own facilities.

Roy was at all relevant times to the lawsuit Switch's CEO and
chairman of the board of directors.  In 2000, Roy founded Switch
and began building a data center in Las Vegas near another data
center that Enron Corp. was constructing.  In 2002, Enron declared
bankruptcy a week before it planned to open its data center.  Roy
subsequently acquired the state-of-the-art facility at a steep
discount, which allowed Switch to transfer massive amounts of data
at below market rates.  Although Switch established other data
centers over the years, the Las Vegas data center remained as the
company's primary source of revenue.

In 2017, Switch began changing its sales strategy to focus on
selling hybrid cloud solutions that presented a significant risk of
lengthening sales timelines because it involved new complications
and required engineering.  Switch did not disclose this shift in
strategy and that it would likely have an adverse effect on
revenue.

On June 13, 2017, Switch registered as a corporation so that it can
issue class A common stock in an IPO.  On Sept. 8, 2017, Switch
filed the registration statement for its IPO with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and, on Sept. 25, 2017, Switch amended the
registration statement and the prospectus therein.  The
registration statement included Switch's offer to sell 31.25
million shares, with an option for the underwriters to purchase an
additional 4,687,400 shares, at $17 per share.

Switch discussed in the registration statement its growth strategy,
which involved developing new facilities in Grand Rapids, Michigan
and Atlanta, Georgia.  However, the registration statement did not
disclose facts explaining that these new facilities lacked the
unique market advantages that made the Las Vegas data center
successful.  The registration statement also failed to disclose
that Switch had changed its sales strategy to focus on hybrid cloud
solutions.  Lastly, the registration statement reported that
Switch's recurring revenue for the first six months of 2017 was
$177,213,000.  This figure included $9.4 million for colocation
services that eBay would use in 2018.  Had Switch not including
this amount in the recurring revenue, Switch's revenue growth would
have been 13% rather than 20%.

On Oct. 6, 2017, shares in Switch began trading on the New York
Stock Exchange.  Six days later, Switch announced the closing of
its IPO and that the underwriters executed their option to purchase
an additional 4,687,400 shares.  In total, Switch sold 35,937,500
shares of class A common stock and received $577.3 million in
proceeds.  Switch also incurred $4.1 million in offering expenses.


On Aug. 13, 2018, Switch issued a press release in which the
company lowered its revenue guidance for the rest of the year.
Switch attributed this decrease in expected revenue to its shift in
sales strategy towards selling hybrid cloud solutions.  Its CFO and
president, Nacht and Thomas Morton respectively, also stated that
Switch had been working on hybrid cloud solutions for a while and
that the company was not actually changing its sales approach. Id.
Analysts critiqued the sales strategy for not being as presented in
the IPO materials and that the deviation in sales figures was
unexpected.  The next day, Switch's stock dropped 22.3% -- from
$13.98 per share to $10.85 per share.

In sum, the alleged misleading statements and omissions in the
registration statement allowed Switch to sell its class A common
stock at $17 per share.  Since the IPO, Switch's stock price has
decreased to approximately $9 per share, over a 47% drop.  Farach
alleges that, had Switch filed a registration statement with
adequate disclosures, the purported class would not have incurred
substantial losses in the form of decreased stock prices.

On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff Cai initiated the action.  In the
amended complaint, Lead Plaintiff Farach alleges two causes of
action: (1) violation of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
and (2) section 15 of the Securities Act.

Now, the Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and strike paragraphs 45,
46, 56, and 65, and footnotes 4 and 7, from the amended complaint.
Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommends striking paragraphs 45 and
46, and footnotes 3, 4, and 7.  

Farach filed a timely objection to the report and recommendation.
Farach alleges in footnotes 4 and 7 that Switch's history of weak
disclosures limit transparency and that Roy never participated in
an investor earnings call despite being the CEO and controlling
shareholder of Switch.  Judge Mahan agrees with the Magistrate
Judge.  Switch's history of disclosure and Roy's participation in
investor earnings calls are too attenuated from any alleged
misleading statements or material omissions in the registration
statement to survive a Rule 12(f) motion.  

The Magistrate Judge also recommends that the Court denies the
Defendants' Rule 12(f) motion as it pertains to paragraphs 56 and
65.  The Defendants have not objected to the recommendation.
Nevertheless, the Judge conducted a de novo review and finds good
cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's finding as it pertains to
paragraphs 56 and 65.

The Defendants move to dismiss Farach's section 11 and section 15
claims.  Farach alleges that the Defendants violated section 11 by
(1) failing to disclose that Switch implemented a new sales
strategy that presented a significant risk of adversely affecting
revenue; (2) failing to disclose unique characteristics and
circumstances of the Las Vegas data center that did not exist at
other locations, making it highly unlikely that Switch could
replicate the success of the Las Vegas data center; and (3)
misrepresenting Switch's revenue by improperly including $9.4
million for services that eBay would not use until the next fiscal
year.

The Judge finds that (i) Farach has plausibly pleaded that Switch
violated item 503 by failing to discuss and explain the risks of
its new sales strategy; (ii) Farach has failed to plead that the
Defendants' violated section 11 by misleading investors into
believing that the new data centers would replicate the success of
the Las Vegas data center; and (iii) Farach has failed to allege a
concrete falsehood or omission in the recurring revenue report and
his section 11 claim with respect to the eBay contract cannot
succeed.

As for Section 15 of the Securities Act, the Defendants argue that
Farach has failed to state a section 15 claim because he has not
alleged a primary violation of the Securities Act.  However, as the
Judge explained, Farach has plausibly pleaded that the Defendants
violated section 11 by failing to disclose that Switch had
implemented a new sales strategy and the risks arising from that
strategy.  Therefore, he will not dismiss Farach's section 15
claim.

Judge Mahan will adopt in part and reject in part Magistrate Judge
Ferenbach's recommendation and strike only footnotes 4 and 7 from
the amended complaint.  He will also dismiss Farach's section 11
claim as it pertains to (1) misleading investors that the new data
centers would replicate the success of the Las Vegas data center
and (2) including the eBay contract in the recurring revenue report
for the first six months of 2017.

Accordingly, he (i) adopted in part and rejected in part Magistrate
Judge Cam Ferenbach's report and recommendation; (ii) granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to strike; and (iii)
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aiCTq7 from Leagle.com.

Mingbo Cai, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Oscar Farach, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Casey
Sadler, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lesley F.
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Robert V. Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Muehlbauer Law
Office,
Ltd.

Kissimmee Utility Authority Employees' Retirement Plan, Movant,
represented by Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Switch, Inc., Rob Roy, Zareh Sarrafian, Donald Snyder, Tom Thomas
&
Bryan Wolf, Defendants, represented by Andrew R. Gray --
andrew.gray@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, pro hac vice, Joshua G.
Hamilton -- joshua.hamilton@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Michele
D. Johnson -- michele.johnson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, pro hac
vice, Ava M. Schaefer -- ams@pisanellibice.com -- Pisanelli Bice,
Kendall M. Howes -- kendall.howes@lw.com -- Latham & Wakins LLP,
pro hac vice & Todd L. Bice -- tlb@pisanellibice.com -- Pisanelli
Bice PLLC.

Gabe Nacht, Defendant, represented by Joshua G. Hamilton , Latham
&
Watkins LLP, Ava M. Schaefer, Pisanelli Bice, Kendall M. Howes,
Latham & Wakins LLP, pro hac vice & Todd L. Bice, Pisanelli Bice
PLLC.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BMO Capital
Markets Corp., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Jefferies LLC,
BTIG, LLC, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Inc. & William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Defendants,
represented by Mark E. Ferrario -- ferrariom@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg
Traurig & Christopher R. Miltenberger -- miltenbergerc@gtlaw.com
--
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


SWITCH INC: Federal Court Narrows Scope in Cai Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Switch, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that in the case, Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al., a
federal court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part,
which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff's case.

Four substantially similar putative class action complaints,
captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018);
Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v.
Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch,
Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single
case (the "State Court Securities Action").

Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint
captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court
Securities Action," and collectively with the State Court
Securities Action, the "Securities Actions") and subsequently
transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August
2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff.

These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch,
Inc.'s IPO alleging federal securities law violations in connection
with the IPO.

These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch,
Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

In October 2018, the state court granted defendants motion to stay
the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court
Securities Action.  In November 2018, the plaintiffs in the State
Court Securities Action filed a petition for writ of mandamus
challenging the stay order.

In February 2019, Switch, Inc. filed an answer to this petition and
plaintiffs in the State Court Securities Action filed their reply
in March 2019.  The Supreme Court of Nevada has not yet issued its
ruling on this petition.

In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities
Action filed an amended complaint.  In November 2018, Switch, Inc.
and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim and a motion to strike.

In July 2019, the federal court granted Switch, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss in part, which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff's case.

Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend against them.

Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides
colocation space and related services primarily to technology and
digital media companies in the United States. It develops and
operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. Switch, Inc. was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


SYMANTEC CORP: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to Amend Claims in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 5, 2019, that the plaintiff in the recently dismissed
consolidated class action suit has filed a motion seeking leave to
amend its claims.

Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been
consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against the Company and
certain of its former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleged that,
during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018,
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated
Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in an
order dated June 14, 2019.  Pursuant to that order, plaintiff was
permitted to file a motion seeking leave to amend its claims.

Plaintiff filed that motion on July 11, 2019 and defendants are
opposing that motion.

Symantec Corporation provides cyber security products, services,
and solutions worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Enterprise Security and Consumer Cyber Safety. The company was
founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California.


SYNACOR INC: Bid to Drop New York Securities Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the federal securities class
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is still ongoing, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief
Financial Officer were named as defendants in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The class includes persons who purchased the Company's shares
between May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018.  The plaintiff alleged that
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its contract with AT&T and the timing of revenue to be
derived therefrom, and that as a result, class members suffered
losses because Synacor shares traded at artificially inflated
prices.

The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
interest, attorneys' fees and legal expenses.  The court appointed
a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's selection of lead counsel
on July 6, 2018.

On October 16, 2018 the court appointed new lead counsel and
confirmed the lead plaintiff.  The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on November 2, 2018 and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss on December 17, 2018.  The plaintiff filed its opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss on January 19, 2019 and the Company filed
its reply to plaintiff's opposition on February 15, 2019.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously.  

Synacor said, "The Company cannot yet determine whether it is
probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this
complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential
loss, if any.  Legal fees and liabilities related to this lawsuit
are covered by D&O insurance after the Company reaches its
deductible."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as CKMP, Inc. and changed its name to
Synacor, Inc. in July 2001. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Consolidated Class Suit in Ohio Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in Ohio
entitled, In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN.

The company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
captioned In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio). The cases were originally filed
on August 10, 2017, and September 18, 2017 and were consolidated on
December 5, 2017.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements with respect to, or failed to disclose, the impact of
certain alleged business practices in connection with sales to the
U.S. government on the Company's growth and profitability.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

In addition, the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its
current or former officers and directors are defendants in a
shareholder derivative action captioned Sciabacucchi v. Howley et
al., No. 1:17-cv-1971-DCN (N.D. Ohio).

The case was filed on September 19, 2017. The plaintiffs allege
breach of fiduciary duty and other claims arising out of
substantially the same actions or inactions alleged in the
securities class actions described above. This action has been
stayed pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss on the securities
class action.

TransDigm said, "Although we are only a nominal defendant in the
derivative action, we could have indemnification obligations and/or
be required to advance the costs and expenses of the officer and
director defendants in the action."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

TransDigm Group Incorporated designs, produces, and supplies
aircraft components in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in three segments: Power & Control, Airframe, and
Non-aviation. TransDigm Group Incorporated was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Bid to Nix Arbitrage Event-Driven Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Media Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that its motion to dismiss the amended complaint
filed by The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund has been "fully briefed"
before the Court.

On September 10, 2018, The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund filed a
putative securities class action complaint (the "Securities
Complaint") against the Company and members of its senior
management in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The Securities Complaint alleges that
Tribune Media Company and its senior management violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by misrepresenting and omitting
material facts concerning Sinclair's conduct during the Sinclair
Merger approval process.

On December 18, 2018, the Court appointed The Arbitrage
Event-Driven Fund and related entities as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 31, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs and two other named plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended
Complaint eliminates the claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and adds a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act related
to a November 29, 2017 public offering of the Company's Class A
Common Stock by Oaktree Tribune, L.P. ("Oaktree").  The Amended
Complaint also names certain members of the Board of Directors of
Tribune Media Company as defendants.  The Amended Complaint also
includes claims against Oaktree, Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.
and Morgan Stanley & Co.  LLC.  The lawsuit is purportedly brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock
between November 29, 2017 and July 16, 2018, contemporaneously with
Oaktree's sales in the November 29, 2017 public offering or
pursuant or traceable to that offering.  Plaintiffs seek damages in
an amount to be determined at trial.

On March 29, 2019, the Company and the individual Tribune Media
Company defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint,
and that motion is now fully briefed before the Court.

The Company said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously."

Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
diversified media and entertainment company in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Tribune Company and changed its
name to Tribune Media Company in July 2014. Tribune Media Company
was founded in 1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Still Faces Consolidated TV Ad Rates Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Media Company remains a defendant in a consolidated lawsuit
in Illinois related to alleged price-fixing of television
advertising rates, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company,
Sinclair, and other named and unnamed defendants (collectively, the
"Defendants") alleging that the Defendants coordinated their
pricing of television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class
of all buyers of television advertising time from one or more of
the Defendants since at least January 1, 2014.

The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.

Currently, twenty-two lawsuits have been filed, and were
consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois.  Lead counsel
for the plaintiffs was appointed on January 23, 2019.  The
plaintiffs then filed an amended, consolidated complaint on April
3, 2019.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intend to
defend them vigorously.

Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
diversified media and entertainment company in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Tribune Company and changed its
name to Tribune Media Company in July 2014. Tribune Media Company
was founded in 1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Mediation in Blue Cross Antitrust Suit Resumes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that parties in the case styled In re
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation have re-commenced
mediation.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a
multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of
providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012,
respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association Antitrust Litigation.

Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service
area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue
Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under
federal antitrust laws.  As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro
quo for said "market allocation" is a horizontal price fixing and
boycott conspiracy implemented through BCBSA and whose benefits are
allegedly derived through the BCBSA's BlueCard/National Accounts
Program.  Among the remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek
increased compensation rates and operational changes.

In turn, subscriber plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy
to allocate markets have prevented subscribers from being offered
competitive prices and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan
subscribers.  Subscribers seek damages for the amounts that the
Blue Plan premiums allegedly have been artificially inflated as a
result of the alleged antitrust violations.  Both actions seek
injunctive relief.

Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS - whose request was ultimately denied by the
court without prejudice.  On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit
in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS.
Said complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS'
jurisdictional arguments.

Since inception, the Company has joined BCBSA and other Blue Plans
in vigorously contesting these claims.  On April 5, 2018, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, issued its ruling on the parties' respective
motions for partial summary judgment on the standard of review
applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on
the Blue Plan's single entity defense.

After considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment
purposes only) and evidence currently on record in the light most
favorable to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the
combination of Exclusive Service Areas and the National Best
Efforts Rule are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b)
there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether
defendants' conduct can be shielded by the "single entity" defense;
and (c) claims concerning the BlueCard Program and uncoupling rules
are due to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason standard.

On April 16, 2018, Defendants moved the Federal District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to certify for immediate
interlocutory appeal the court's April 5, 2018 Standard of Review
Ruling.

On June 12, 2018, Hon. Judge Proctor agreed to grant Defendant's
motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).
Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on July 12, 2018.

On December 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
denied Defendants' petition to appeal the District Court's Standard
of Review Ruling.  The parties re-commenced mediation in April
2019.

Triple-S Management Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
a portfolio of managed care and related products in the commercial,
Medicare, and Medicaid markets in Puerto Rico, the United States.
The company operates through three segments: Managed Care, Life
Insurance, and Property and Casualty Insurance. Triple-S Management
Corporation was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in San Juan,
Puerto Rico.


TRUECAR INC: $28.25MM Settlement Reached in Milbeck Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit initiated
by Leon Milbeck have entered into a settlement agreement on a
class-wide basis for US$28.25 million, which will be covered by the
Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance.  The lead
plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement is still pending.

In March 2018, Leon Milbeck filed a putative securities class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California naming the Company and one of its former
officers as defendants, which the Company refers to as the Milbeck
Federal Securities Litigation.  The complaint sought an award of
unspecified damages, interest, attorney's fees and equitable relief
based on allegations that the defendants made false or misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations, prospects and
performance during a purported class period of February 16, 2017
through November 6, 2017 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On June 27, 2018, the court appointed the Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 24, 2018.  The amended complaint
reiterated the claims in the prior complaint and added claims under
Section 11 of the Exchange Act.  The amended complaint also added
the Company's former chief executive officer Chip Perry, its former
interim chief financial officer John Pierantoni, its former chief
financial officer Michael Guthrie and its underwriters and
directors who signed the registration statement for the Company's
secondary offering that occurred during the class period, which the
Company refer to as the 2017 Registration Statement, as
defendants.

On October 31, 2018, the lead plaintiff dismissed the underwriters
from the litigation "without prejudice," meaning that they could be
reinstated as defendants at a later time, and on November 5, 2018,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
the court denied on February 5, 2019.

On May 9, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion for
class certification and scheduled trial to begin on November 5,
2019.

On July 3, 2019, the Company, the lead plaintiff and the individual
defendants notified the court that the Company had reached an
agreement in principle to settle the outstanding claims in the
Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation.

On August 2, 2019, the parties entered into an agreement to settle
the Milbeck Federal Securities Litigation on a classwide basis for
US$28.25 million, which will be covered by the Company's directors'
and officers' liability insurance.  Later that day, the lead
plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, which the court has not yet granted.

The Company said, "Although the court has not yet approved the
settlement, and the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding
therefore remains uncertain, we do not believe that a loss is
probable because we expect that any settlement amount will be
covered by our directors' and officers' liability insurance.
However, if similar litigation is filed against us, we may incur
significant legal fees, settlements or damage awards as a result.
If any such matter is not resolved in our favor, losses arising
from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing
defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows."

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. The company was formerly
known as Zag.com Inc. TrueCar, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Calif. Consumer Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that in the California Consumer Class Action suit,
the plaintiff's appeal from the court's denial of class
certification motion is still pending.

In December 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in the
California Consumer Class Action.  The complaint asserted claims
for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar
to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA
Litigation.

In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of
"[a]ll California consumers who purchased an automobile by using
TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable statute of
limitations." On January 12, 2016, the court entered an order
staying all proceedings in the case pending an initial status
conference, which was scheduled for April 13, 2016.

On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge.
As a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was
rescheduled for and held on May 26, 2016.  By stipulation, the stay
of discovery was continued until a second status conference, which
was scheduled for October 12, 2016.  On July 13, 2016, the
plaintiff amended his complaint.

The amended complaint continues to assert claims for unjust
enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
and violation of the California Business and Professions Code.  The
amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the
initial complaint.  Like the initial complaint, the amended
complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees.

On September 12, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended
complaint.  On October 12, 2016, the court heard oral argument on
the demurrer.  On October 13, 2016, the court granted in part and
denied in part the Company's demurrer to the amended complaint,
dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss the
balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation.

At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the court ruled
that discovery could then proceed regarding matters related to
class certification only.  At a status conference held on July 25,
2017, the court set a deadline of January 8, 2018 for the filing of
the plaintiff's motion for class certification and provided that
discovery could continue to proceed regarding matters related to
class certification only at that time.  Subsequently, the court
extended to February 7, 2018 the deadline for the filing of
plaintiff's motion for class certification and for the completion
of related discovery.

On February 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class
certification motion on July 12, 2018 and denied the motion on July
27, 2018.

On September 26, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and
proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the
resolution of the appeal.

The Company said, "We believe that the amended complaint is without
merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.
Based on the current stage of the proceedings in this case, the
outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal
defense costs, remains uncertain; however, we may incur significant
legal fees, settlements or damage awards resulting from this or
other civil litigation.  If this matter is not resolved in our
favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or
settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. The company was formerly
known as Zag.com Inc. TrueCar, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


UGI CORP: AmeriGas Partners Faces Class Suits Related to Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that AmeriGas Partners is
defending against two class action suits related to its merger with
UGI.

On April 1, 2019, the company entered into the Merger Agreement,
pursuant to which AmeriGas Propane Holdings, LLC (Merger Sub) will
merge with and into the AmeriGas Partners (Partnership), with the
Partnership surviving as an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
UGI.

In connection with the Proposed Merger , on June 5, 2019, a single
AmeriGas Partners unitholder filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

On July 9, 2019, a second AmeriGas Partners unitholder filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The complaints generally allege that the May 6, 2019 registration
statement filed with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Merger
included materially incomplete and/or misleading information in
violation of the federal securities laws.

The complaints request, among other things, that the respective
courts enjoin the parties from proceeding with the Proposed Merger
or rescind the Proposed Merger if it does close.

Both plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

AmeriGas Partners has not yet answered or responded to the
complaints.

UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy
products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through four segments:
AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI
Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


UGI CORP: Suits Over Underfilled Propane Cylinders Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend suits related to underfilled propane cylinders.

Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits
were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI
and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers.


The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to
reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds
to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer,
Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in
increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in
violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws.  

The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of the putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Missouri District Court.  

As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings,
including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct
customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect
customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District
Court.

The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to dismiss the
federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was
upheld by the Eighth Circuit.

On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that
it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers’ state law
claims and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to
pursue those claims.

UGI Corp. said, "Although we cannot predict the final results of
these pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after
consultation with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters
will not have a material effect on our financial statements."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy
products and related services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through four segments:
AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI
Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


UNITED STATES: Class Suit Targets ICE Detention Centers
-------------------------------------------------------
Jennette Barnes, writing for South Coast Today, reports that
several national organizations plan to announce on Aug. 19, 2019,
that they are filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of people
being held in U.S. immigration detention centers.

The groups include the Southern Poverty Law Center, Disability
Rights Advocates, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center and
others, according to a notice sent to media ahead of a telephone
briefing scheduled for Monday.

The lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and others will challenge the
medical, mental health and disability accommodations in ICE
detention facilities.

The organizations say detainees have not been held in safe and
humane conditions required by federal law and the U.S.
Constitution. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Ackerman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ACKERMAN BROTHERS FARMS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-11779 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern
Division, (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment;
(iii) granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and
(iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On June 5, 2017, a group of farmers and incorporated farms filed
suit against a number of insurance companies, the United States
Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), the Risk Management Agency
("RMA"), and the Federal Crop Insurance Corp. ("FCIC").  The
Plaintiffs were dry bean farmers in Michigan, Minnesota, and North
Dakota who have not received indemnity for crop insurance to which
they believe they are entitled.

Defendant USDA is a department of the United States Government and
is the parent agency of Defendant RMA, which in turn administers
Defendant FCIC, a wholly government-owned corporation created under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act.  The Insurance Defendants sold
insurance coverage to Plaintiffs during 2015.

On Nov. 22, 2017, the Federal Defendants and Insurance Defendants
both filed motions to dismiss.  On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
correcting the names of certain Plaintiffs.
On April 18, 2018, the Court issued an order granting the motions
to dismiss and also granting the motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.  It concluded that the Plaintiffs had not
complied with the insurance policies' arbitration requirements.
Accordingly, all Insurance Defendants were dismissed.  The Court
also dismissed without prejudice all Plaintiffs who did not farm or
reside in the Eastern District of Michigan, concluding that they
were bringing suit in the improper venue.  On April 30, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On May 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's order to dismiss.  In the motion, they argued that the
the Plaintiffs from outside the Eastern District of Michigan should
have been transferred to the proper venue instead of dismissed.
The motion was granted in part and the Minnesota Plaintiffs were
transferred to the District of Minnesota.

On Oct. 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for supplementation
of the administrative record.  They contended that information was
excluded from the Administrative Record that was necessary for the
Court to determine whether the Defendants acted arbitrarily and
capriciously.  The Court determined that the Administrative Record
adequately addressed the matters in question and the motion was
denied.

On April 1, 2019, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed
cross-motions for summary judgment.  The Plaintiffs later filed a
motion for class certification.  

The Plaintiffs are bringing the putative class action on behalf of
all dry bean farmers in the Eastern District of Michigan (navy
[pea] beans or small red beans).  Each Plaintiff purchased Dry Bean
Revenue Endorsement ("DRBE") crop insurance for their dry bean
crops in 2015.  The purpose of the insurance was to protect dry
bean farmers against a market price decline.  However, the
Plaintiffs allege that though dry bean market prices declined
greatly in 2015, no indemnity was paid to them.  In the present
suit, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment invalidating
certain administrative determinations related to the DBRE and
ordering the Defendants to ensure that the Plaintiffs' losses are
indemnified or their premiums reimbursed.

In the first count of their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs argue
that the Defendants' interpretation of the DBRE was arbitrary and
capricious.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Federal Crop Insurance
Act requires the RMA to set the harvest price to the market price
rather than the projected price.  They also argue that the RMA had
the authority to set the harvest price to the market price rather
than the projected price.  The Defendants argue that instead, this
authority lies with Watts.

Judge Ludington finds that the second document that the Plaintiffs
identify is a letter opinion by James T. Murray, the Deputy
Director of USDA's National Appeals Division.  It provides that
under the facts presented, FCIC and RMA elected to make the crop
loss harvest price equal to the projected price for all insureds
because it did not receive the required percentage of reported dry
bean crop harvest prices.  The letter supports the Defendants'
assertion that it set the harvest price as directed by the DBRE.
There is no indication that the Defendants exercised any form of
discretion in setting the harvest price.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the discrepancy between the DBRE and
the Revenue Insurance Standards Handbook should be resolved so that
the Handbook's pricing scheme controls rather than the DBRE's
pricing scheme.   The Judge finds that the Handbook expressly
states that it provides the administration standards for the Dry
Bean Revenue Crop Provisions under the Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement
and instructions for establishing coverage in accordance with the
Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement.  The Handbook is intended to instruct
insurance providers how to implement the DBRE.  Insofar as there is
a discrepancy between the DBRE and the Handbook, it would be
illogical to conclude that the Handbook controls rather than the
DBRE.  The Handbook is a supplement to the DBRE, not an originating
document in its own right.

In the second count of their complaint, the Plaintiffs contend that
the Defendants should not have approved the DBRE in 2012 and 2013.
They contend that Defendants approving the DBRE was arbitrary and
capricious.  The Judge holds that the Defendants' decision to adopt
Watt's proposal with the provision setting the harvest price to the
projected price when the Dry Bean News published insufficient data
is a "decision of less than ideal clarity."  In situations in which
there was insufficient data, the insurance purchased by farmers
would be entirely negated.  However, the Defendants relied upon the
recommendations of multiple experts who acknowledged this
possibility, but nonetheless recommended that the policy be adopted
since the probability was low that the situation would occur.  The
Defendants' reliance upon these experts was rational.  Accordingly,
their decision to adopt Watts's proposal was not arbitrary and
capricious.

Based on the foregoing, the Judge (i) granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment; (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment; (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification; and (iv) dismissed the second amended
complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/JbM1BC from Leagle.com.

Ackerman Brothers Farms, LLC, Back Road Farming, Inc., Daniel E.
Balcer, Becker Farms, LLC, Randy Beckering, Bernia & Sons Farms,
Inc., Bernia Family Farms, Inc., Brian Brandenburg, Gary Bulzan,
D. T. Rouech Farms, LLC, Todd W. Draggoo, Beatrice Elenbaum,
French Farms, Harry Gaiser, Jr., Jason Gaiser, Goebel Farms,
Inc., James Gremel, Gro Green Acres, Gruehn Farms, Inc., Gruehn
Acre Farms, Jason Haag, Terry Haag, Tom Haag, Scott Hawken, John
Schluckebier Farms, Inc., Fred Karg, Kurtis Kreger, Timothy
Kubacki, Kundinger Farms, Inc., Laracha Farms, LLC, Matthew Lutz,
R & J Farms, Inc., Robert Rathje, Rayl Farms, Inc., Richmond
Brothers Farms, LLC, Rodammer Farms, Inc., Russell Transport,
Inc., Daniel Sahr, Leasly Schaper, Gregory Schian, Jeffrey
Schian, John Schian, Brad Singer, Stacer Farms Ltd. Partnership,
Constance Kreger, Mark Stambaugh, Donald Stecker, Vern Stephen,
Lucas M. Stockmeyer, Robert Stockmeyer, Kendall Stoeckle,
Stoutenburg Farms, Three R Farms, Inc., Vader and Son, LLC, Vader
Farms, Inc., Vanhoost Farms, Inc., Glenn L. Vogel, Joseph
Vohwinkle, Jim Wilkinson, Terry Wood, Don Zaremba, Zimmer Farms,
Inc. & Ackerman & Son LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by John D.
Tallman.

United States Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency &
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Sarah Pring Karpinen, U.S. Attorney's Office.


UNITED STATES: Judge Allows Immigration Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aida Ryan, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a federal judge
in Boston allowed to move forward a class-action lawsuit that
accuses the government of denying due process to detained
immigrants.

The ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU of New Hampshire filed suit
in June, alleging the federal government had unlawfully detained
three plaintiffs after flawed detention hearings. The civil
liberties groups said the detainees were unconstitutionally
required to show they posed neither a threat to others nor a flight
risk.

The government has opposed the lawsuit, arguing that a final
judgment for the plaintiffs in a class-action suit would have
"severe ramifications on immigration procedures." The government
opposes certification of the lawsuit as a class action and argues
that due-process claims don't apply. [GN]


US XPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in California Wage & Hour Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that discovery is ongoing
in a wage and hour class suit in California.

On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino. The case was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


The putative class includes current and former truck drivers
employed by the company who worked or work in California after the
completion of their training while residing in California since
December 23, 2011 to present.

The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock
work, were not provided duty free meal or break times, and were not
paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid minimum wage for
all hours worked, were not provided accurate and complete time and
pay records and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their
employment, all in violation of California law. The class seeks a
judgment for compensatory damages and penalties, injunctive relief,
attorney fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On May 2, 2019, the court dismissed on grounds of preemption the
claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal and rest breaks
or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such breaks under
California law.

The matter is currently in discovery, and a jury trial has been
requested. There is currently no trial date set.

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any.  We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Independent Contractor Class Suit in Tennessee Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company and its
subsidiaries continue to defend an Independent Contractor class
action suit in Tennessee.

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
against the company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S.
Xpress Leasing, Inc.

The putative class includes individuals who performed work as lease
operators, who leased equipment from us, and who were designated as
independent contractors. The complaint alleges that independent
contractors are improperly designated as such and should be
designated as employees and thus subject to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.’s pay
practices with regard to the putative class members violated the
minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26,
2016 to present.

The complaint further alleges that the company violated the
requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements we
entered into with the putative class members. The complaint further
alleges that the company failed to comply with the terms of the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements
entered into with the putative class members, that the company
violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in
advertising, describing and marketing the lease purchase program to
the putative class members, and that the company were unjustly
enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations.

U.S. Xpress said, "The matter is not yet in discovery, and we are
currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably
estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the
allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to such
actions."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Named in Tennessee Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a Tennessee court
presiding over the remaining of the federal court cases has issued
an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

Between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of
Hamilton County, Tennessee ("Tennessee State Court Cases"), two in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("Federal Court Cases"), and one in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York ("New York State Court Case").

Two of the Tennessee State Court Cases and one of the Federal Court
Cases have been voluntarily dismissed.

All of these matters are in preliminary stages of litigation, and
discovery has not yet begun. We are currently not able to predict
the probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any.

On November 21, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the
company, five of itsofficers or directors, and the seven
underwriters who participated in the company's June 2018 initial
public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

The class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company
made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the initial public offering
(IPO). The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's Class A common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees) on behalf
of the putative class.

On January 23, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 7, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On January 30, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 5, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 6, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by different plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 19, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 8, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018.  On May
9, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff..

On March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. The
parties have stipulated to extend the time for defendants to
respond to the complaint in this matter pending resolution of the
motions to dismiss filed (or to be filed) in the remaining of the
Tennessee State Court Cases and the Federal Court Cases.

On April 2, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against us and the
same five of our officers and directors as in the action commenced
on November 21, 2018.  Unlike the previously filed complaints, this
complaint did not name as defendants any of the seven underwriters
who participated in the company's IPO.

The three remaining Tennessee State Court Cases have been
consolidated, and discovery is currently stayed pending a decision
on a motion to dismiss filed by us and the other defendants. On
July 18, 2019, the court presiding over the remaining of the
Federal Court Cases issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.  Pursuant to a stipulation entered in that matter,
the appointed lead plaintiff is expected to file an amended
complaint.

The complaints in all the actions listed above allege that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the
IPO, and that, as a result of such alleged statements, the
plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes suffered
damages. We believe the allegations made in the complaints are
without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these
matters.

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


US XPRESS: TCPA Class Suit Against Unit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a class action
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against
U.S. Xpress, Inc., a company subsidiary, has been dismissed by the
court.

A class action was filed against the company's subsidiary U.S.
Xpress, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia on December 11, 2017 and amended on March 7, 2018,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, for
two separate proposed classes.

The putative classes included all persons within the United States
to whom the Company either initiated a telephone call to a cellular
telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system or
initiated a call to a residential telephone number using an
artificial or pre-recorded voice at any time from December 11, 2013
to present.

Prior to certification of the class, the parties reached a
settlement agreement, and the court dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice on July 23, 2019.

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


VBI VACCINES: Class Status Request in Israel Suit Still Suspended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, a motion for class certification in a lawsuit in
Israel remains suspended ending a determination of liability under
a related civil action in the same court.  

On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the District
Court of the central district in Israel naming the Company's
subsidiary SciVac as a defendant.

In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July
2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants
in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that
SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to
consumers and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.  The claim was filed together with a motion seeking
approval of a class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated
with Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April, 2011 and seeking damages in a
total amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands) (US$527,061).

The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was
marketed in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its
safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was produced and marketed in Israel
without approval of a western regulatory body.  The claim seeks
damages for past and future losses and expenses as well as punitive
damages.

SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching
a decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action.  The trial of
the civil action has been scheduled to begin on September 19,
2019.

VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


VECTOR GROUP: 62 Claims Still Pending in Engle Progeny Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that 62 plaintiffs' claims remain pending in state
court related to the Engle Progeny Cases.

In May 1994, the Engle case was filed as a class action against
Liggett and others in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The class
consisted of all Florida residents who, by November 21, 1996, "have
suffered, presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical
conditions caused by their addiction to cigarette smoking." A trial
was held and the jury returned a verdict adverse to the defendants
(approximately US$145,000,000,000 in punitive damages, including
US$790,000,000 against Liggett).  Following an appeal to the Third
District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court in July 2006
decertified the class on a prospective basis and affirmed the
appellate court's reversal of the punitive damages award.  Former
class members had until January 2008 to file individual lawsuits.
As a result, Liggett and the Company, and other cigarette
manufacturers, were sued in thousands of Engle progeny cases in
both federal and state courts in Florida.  Although the Company was
not named as a defendant in the Engle case, it was named as a
defendant in substantially all of the Engle progeny cases where
Liggett was named as a defendant.

In October 2013, the Company and Liggett entered into a settlement
with approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their
counsel.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed
to pay a total of approximately US$110,000,000, with US$61,600,000
paid in an initial lump sum and the balance of US$48,000,000 to be
paid in installments over 14 years starting in February 2015.  In
exchange, the claims of these plaintiffs were dismissed with
prejudice against the Company and Liggett.  The Company's future
payments will be approximately US$3,400,000 per annum through 2028,
with a cost of living increase beginning in 2021.

In December 2016, the Company and Liggett entered into an agreement
with 124 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their counsel.  Pursuant to
the terms of this settlement, Liggett agreed to pay US$17,650,000,
US$14,000,000 of which was paid in December 2016 with the balance
paid in December 2017.  As a result of this settlement, the Company
recorded a charge of US$17,650,000 in the fourth quarter of 2016.
In June 2017, Liggett entered into an agreement to settle nine
cases (eight Engle progeny cases and one Individual Action) for
US$1,400,000 and in September 2017 Liggett entered into an
agreement to settle 20 Engle progeny cases for US$4,100,000.  As of
June 30, 2019, Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on
an individual basis, settled an additional 187 Engle progeny cases
for approximately US$7,700,000 in the aggregate.  Two of these
settlements occurred in the second quarter of 2019.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny
Settlements, 62 plaintiffs' claims remain pending in state court.
Therefore, the Company and Liggett may still be subject to periodic
adverse judgments which could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Incurs $3.7MM in Tobacco-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liggett Group LLC has incurred tobacco product liability legal
expenses and costs totaling US$3,737,000 for the six months ended
June 30, 2019, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette manufacturers
have been named as defendants in numerous direct, third-party and
purported class actions predicated on the theory that cigarette
manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged to have been
caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.

The cases have generally fallen into the following categories: (i)
smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf
of individual plaintiffs ("Individual Actions"); (ii) lawsuits by
individuals requesting the benefit of the Engle ruling ("Engle
progeny cases"); (iii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging
personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing
medical monitoring, as well as cases alleging that use of the terms
"lights" and/or "ultra lights" constitutes a deceptive and unfair
trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal law,
purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and (iv) health care cost recovery
actions brought by various foreign and domestic governmental
plaintiffs and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement
for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking
and/or disgorgement of profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery
Actions").

The Company said, "The future financial impact of the risks and
expenses of litigation are not quantifiable.  For the six months
ended June 30, 2019 and 2018, Liggett incurred tobacco product
liability legal expenses and costs totaling US$3,737,000 and
US$3,584,000, respectively.  The tobacco product liability legal
expenses and costs are included in the operating, selling,
administrative and general expenses and litigation settlement and
judgment expense line items in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations.  Legal defense costs are expensed as
incurred."

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Reaches Tentative Pact in Tobacco Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that subsidiary Liggett Group LLC has reached a
tentative settlement of the case styled In Re: Tobacco Litigation
(Personal Injury Cases).  As a result, all further proceedings in
the case have been stayed.  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 18, 2018, a
West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual
smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain
"common" issues.  Liggett was severed from that trial.

In May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs'
claims against the non-Liggett defendants, finding in favor of
plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes between
1964 and July 1, 1969 should have included instructions on how to
use them.  The court entered judgment in October 2013, dismissing
all claims against the non-Liggett defendants except the ventilated
filter claim on behalf of 30 plaintiffs.  Subsequently, these
claims were settled by the non-Liggett defendants.

In May 2016, the trial court ruled that the case could proceed
against Liggett, notwithstanding the outcome of the first phase of
the trial against the non-Liggett defendants.

In June 2019, Liggett reached a tentative settlement of the
litigation.  As a result, all further proceedings in the case have
been stayed.  Liggett accrued for this matter in the second quarter
of 2019.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VECTOR GROUP: Parsons Personal Injury Class Lawsuit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that a stay remains in effect for the purported
class action styled Parsons v. AC & S Inc. due to the December 2000
bankruptcy of three of the defendants.

In February 1998, the purported class action was commenced on
behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have claims
arising from their exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.
The operative complaint seeks to recover unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Lawsuit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A stay remains in effect for the purported personal injury class
action styled Young v. American Tobacco Co., according to Vector
Group Ltd.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

In November 1997, the purported class action was commenced on
behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in
Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allege they
were exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were
manufactured by the defendants, including Liggett, and suffered
injury as a result of that exposure.  The plaintiffs seek to
recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
No class certification hearing has been held.  The stay order
entered on March 16, 2016 stays the case pending completion of the
smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The
American Tobacco Co.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in
domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and
brokerage.


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Reiser Sues Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH REISER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01024-NR (W.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 2019) is
an action seeking damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against
Defendants for their violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

In February 2018, Defendant filed suit against Plaintiff in an
Allegheny County Magisterial District Court (the "MDJ"). Defendant
claimed it purchased a loan Plaintiff allegedly opened with OneMain
Financial. After the Lawsuit was served, Plaintiff paid to retain
an attorney to defend the Lawsuit and entered a defense. In March
2018, the MDJ held a hearing and entered judgment against Defendant
and for Plaintiff. Defendant appealed the MDJ judgment, but failed
to file a complaint. Plaintiff struck Defendant's appeal, which
left intact the MDJ judgment. Plaintiff should not have been sued,
should not have had to pay for an attorney to defend her, and
should not have had to interact with Defendant because Defendant
was not legally permitted to purchase or collect on the Loan, says
the complaint.

OneMain Financial is a consumer discount company regulated by the
Consumer Discount Company Act ("CDCA"). The CDCA requires consumer
discount companies to have a consumer discount company license in
order to make, buy, or sell a CDCA loan. Defendant is not licensed
as a consumer discount company under the CDCA, meaning Defendant
cannot lawfully purchase CDCA loans from any consumer discount
company and no consumer discount company can lawfully sell
Defendant any CDCA loans. Defendant cannot lawfully collect on any
of the CDCA loans it purchased from OneMain Financial, including
the Loan, or any other company licensed under the CDCA. By suing
Plaintiff for a loan Defendant could not lawfully purchase or
collect, Defendant unfairly and unlawfully forced Plaintiff to pay
and retain legal counsel to defend against the Lawsuit.

As a result of Defendants' actions, the rights of Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to Plaintiff were violated, and Plaintiff
and the members of the class suffered injury in fact, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Joshua Hutchison was a resident of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.

Defendant's sole business is the purchasing of consumer debt with
the purpose of collecting on that debt for profit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     BCJ Law LLC
     186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127
     Pittsburgh, PA 15201
     Phone: (412) 223-5740
     Email: kevina@bcjlawyer.com

          - and –

     Gary Lynch, Esq.
     Edwin Kilpela, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
            ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com


VILLA DEL RIO: Illegally Rounds Off Workers' Time, Harris Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARDA HARRIS, on behalf of all other similarly situated aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. VILLA DEL RIO, INC. and DOES 1 to
100, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV28198 (Cal. Super., Aug. 8,
2019), seeks recovery of civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to pay all
wages due to illegal time rounding; failed to provide all
legally-requisite meal periods; failed to authorize and permit all
paid legally-requisite rest periods; and derivatively failed to
timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt hourly paid
employee.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, on behalf of all other similarly
situated aggrieved employees are:

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (323) 857-5900

VIRGINIA: 4th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Manning Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYAN MANNING; RYAN WILLIAMS; RICHARD DECKERHOFF;
RICHARD EUGENE WALLS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DONALD CALDWELL,
Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Roanoke; MICHAEL NEHEMIAH
HERRING, Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Richmond,
Defendants-Appellees. NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS &
POVERTY, Amicus Supporting Appellant, Case No. 17-1320 (4th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the
district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a
claim.

Homeless alcoholics brought the action challenging a Virginia
statutory scheme that makes it a criminal offense for those whom
the Commonwealth has labelled "habitual drunkards" to possess,
consume, or purchase alcohol.  The scheme authorizes Virginia to
obtain, in absentia, a civil interdiction order against persons it
deems "habitual drunkards," and then permits Virginia to rely on
the interdiction order to criminally prosecute conduct permitted
for all others of legal drinking age.

The Plaintiffs allege that the scheme, which has resulted in their
repeated arrest and imprisonment, violates the Constitution.  Each
of the named Plaintiffs in the case, Manning, Williams, Deckerhoff,
and Walls, alleges that he has been interdicted as an "habitual
drunkard" pursuant to the statutory scheme.  Each alleges that he
suffers from alcohol use disorder, commonly called alcoholism,
which causes him a "profound drive or craving to use alcohol" that
is "compulsive or non-volitional."  Each further alleges that he is
homeless and that his homelessness exacerbates his addiction,
making it nearly impossible to cease or mitigate alcohol
consumption.  Notably, however, nothing in the complaint or
elsewhere in the record indicates that any Plaintiff was convicted
of any alcohol-related offenses before being interdicted.

The Plaintiffs allege that, although by its terms the challenged
scheme is not limited to the homeless, in practice it functions as
a tool to rid the streets of particularly vulnerable, unwanted
alcoholics like themselves.  In support of this claim, they allege
that although there were 4,743 prosecutions for the crime of
possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by interdicted
persons during the decade preceding 2015, only 1,220 distinct
individuals were interdicted between 2007 and 2015.

Each of the named Plaintiffs asserts that he has been repeatedly
criminally prosecuted after interdiction, often on dubious grounds.
Some say they have been prosecuted as many as 25 to 30 times.  In
each instance, the Plaintiffs faced (and allege they will again
face) arrest, prosecution, and incarceration for up to a year in
prison, all for conduct permitted for all others of legal drinking
age.  They allege that the "habitual drunkard" label also has
adversely affected their ability to maintain employment and secure
long-term housing, and has subjected them to continual harassment
and embarrassment.

In March 2016, the named Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
alleging that the Virginia scheme (1) constituted cruel and unusual
punishment outlawed by the Eighth Amendment, (2) deprived them of
due process of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
(3) denied them the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and (4) was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The district court considered and rejected
all four claims and so dismissed the complaint.

The district court dismissed their complaint, holding that they
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  In
rejecting the Plaintiffs' vagueness and Eighth Amendment claims,
the district court relied largely on a 1979 district court opinion,
which it summarily affirmed.  

After a panel of the Court affirmed the district court in the case,
the Court voted to rehear the case en banc, and so vacated the
panel opinion.  It now considers the case anew, reviewing de novo
the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.

The Court finds that both parties were questioned about the
vagueness of the statutory scheme during oral argument before the
en banc Court, and both submitted supplemental briefs on the
subject.  Moreover, the crux of the Plaintiffs' appeal concerns an
issue of "exceptional importance" to the Commonwealth of Virginia,
namely, whether a statutory scheme imposing criminal penalties on
an untold number of chronically ill citizens is unconstitutionally
vague.  Accordingly, the Court is persuaded that there are
compelling reasons in the case to justify excusing the Plaintiffs'
initial abandonment of their vagueness claim on appeal.  In the
present case, the lack of any guidelines or standards regarding who
qualifies as an "habitual drunkard" compels the conclusion that use
of the term in the challenged scheme is unconstitutionally vague.


In sum, the term "habitual drunkard" specifies no standard of
conduct.  It is thus unconstitutionally vague, because the term
invites the very type of arbitrary enforcement that the
Constitution's prohibition against vague statutes is designed to
prevent.  Accordingly, the challenged scheme's current use of the
term "habitual drunkard" is unconstitutionally vague even as
applied to these Plaintiffs, and the Court concludes that the
district court thus erred in dismissing the Plaintiffs' vagueness
challenge under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Commonwealth civilly brands alcoholics as "habitual drunkards"
before prosecuting them for involuntary manifestations of their
illness does nothing to cure the unconstitutionality of this
statutory scheme.  But, even if the term "habitual drunkard" could
be construed to apply only to those who suffer from alcoholism, the
Plaintiffs have stated an independent claim that the challenged
statute violates the Eighth Amendment.  What the Eighth Amendment
cannot tolerate is the targeted criminalization of otherwise legal
behavior that is an involuntary manifestation of an illness.  
Without question, the many homeless citizens of Virginia who
struggle with the effects of alcohol on their mental and physical
health are entitled to guidance and fair notice under the law.
They have not been given such direction in the current version of
the statutory scheme.  While necessary changes in the law may not
alter the choices that they make or enhance the quality of their
life, at least the government will not be compounding their
problems by subjecting them to incarceration based on the arbitrary
enforcement of ambiguous laws or, at best, the targeted
criminalization of their illnesses.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the district court,
and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2iCGQD from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Jonathan Lee Marcus -- jonathan.lee@skadden.com -- SKADDEN,
ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Matthew Robert McGuire, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Mark D. Young -- mark.d.young@skadden.com -- Maureen A.
Donley -- maureen.donley@skadden.com -- Donald P. Salzman, Theodore
M. Kneller, Shekida A. Smith, Daniel B. O'Connell, SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mary Frances
Charlton, Angela Ciolfi, Elaine Poon -- elaine@justice4all.org --
LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellants. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Trevor S. Cox,
Deputy Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees. Eric S. Tars, NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON
HOMELESSNESS & POVERTY, Washington, D.C.; Richard P. Bress, Andrew
D. Prins, George C. Chipev, Ryan C. Grover, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Douglas N. Letter , Nicolas Y. Riley, Seth Wayne,
Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.


VIRTU FINANCIAL: ProShares Trust II Securities Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtu Financial, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities action
styled, In re ProShares Trust II Securities Litigation, No.
19-cv-886-DLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

On January 29, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Ford
v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No. 19-cv-886.  The complaint was
filed in federal district court in New York on behalf of a putative
class, and asserts claims against the Company and numerous other
financial institutions under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with trading in a ProShares inverse-volatility
ETF.

Additionally, on February 27, 2019, and March 1, 2019, the Company
was named as a defendant in Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et al.,
No. 19-cv-1840, and Mareno v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No.
19-cv-1955, respectively.

The complaints were filed in federal district court in New York on
behalf of putative classes, and assert substantially similar claims
against the Company and other financial institutions.

On April 29, 2019, these three actions were consolidated in federal
district court in New York as In re ProShares Trust II Securities
Litigation, No. 19-cv-886-DLC.  A consolidated amended complaint,
which does not specify the amount of alleged damages, was filed in
the consolidated action on June 21, 2019.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously.

Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
market making and liquidity services through its proprietary,
multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the
financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in
2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


VIRTU FINANCIAL: Still Defends Retirement Fund's Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Virtu Financial, Inc. is still facing a class action suit entitled,
Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et
al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

On July 20, 2017 (the "KCG Closing Date"), the Company completed
the all-cash acquisition of KCG Holdings, Inc. ("KCG") (the
"Acquisition of KCG").

In connection with the Acquisition of KCG, a previously filed
complaint, which was initially captioned Greenway v. KCG Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2017-421-JTL and filed on behalf of a
putative class in Delaware Chancery Court, was recaptioned Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund v. KCG Holdings, Inc., et al.,
amended and refiled on February 14, 2018 to include claims for the
alleged breach of fiduciary duties against former KCG board
members, claims against each of the Company and Jefferies LLC for
allegedly aiding and abetting the KCG board members' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and a claim against the Company and
Jefferies LLC for alleged civil conspiracy.

The amended complaint was again amended on July 16, 2018 with the
filing of the Verified Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") to include additional factual
allegations.

No amount of damages is stated in the Second Amended Complaint,
against which Virtu is defending itself vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
market making and liquidity services through its proprietary,
multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the
financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in
2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class
action suit in the U.S.  District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by
individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the
Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling
shareholder, Artal, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The actions were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed in
June 2019. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 29,
2019, naming as defendants the Company, certain of the Company's
current officers and directors, and Artal and certain of its
affiliates.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2018 and
February 26, 2019, inclusive, or the Class Period, including
purchasers of the Company's common stock traceable to the May 2018
secondary offering of the Company's common stock by certain of its
shareholders.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed or recklessly disregarded material adverse facts.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and with respect to the
secondary offering, under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the
class members.

The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend it.

Weight Watchers International, Inc. (NYSE: WTW), provides weight
management services worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1961 and
is headquartered in New York, New York.


WESTERN RANGE: 10th Cir. Partly Affirms Llacua Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODOLFO LLACUA; ESLIPER HUAMAN; LEOVEGILDO VILCHEZ
GUERRA; LIBER VILCHEZ GUERRA; RAFEAL DE LA CRUZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION; MOUNTAIN
PLAINS AGRICULTURAL SERVICE; MARTIN AUZA SHEEP CORPORATION;
NOTTINGHAM LAND AND LIVESTOCK, LLLP; TWO BAR SHEEP CORPORATION,
LLC; CUNNINGHAM SHEEP COMPANY; DENNIS RICHINS, D/B/A Dennis Richins
Livestock, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-1113 (10th Cir.),
Judge Michael R. Murphy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
dismissal of the second amended complaint ("SAC").

Five Peruvian shepherds who worked in the Western United States
pursuant to H-2A agricultural visas brought antitrust claims, on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated classes of shepherds,
against several sheep ranchers, two associations, and Dennis
Richins.  The Shepherds alleged the Defendants conspired and agreed
to fix wages offered and paid to shepherds at the minimum DOL wage
floor.  

The Shephers also brought class action RICO claims against Richins
and the Association Defendants.  The RICO claims focus on allegedly
false assurances made by the Association Defendants to the federal
government that H-2A shepherds are being properly reimbursed for
"reasonable costs incurred by the worker for transportation and
daily subsistence from the place from which the worker has come to
work for the employer," as required by 20 C.F.R. Section 655.122.

The district court dismissed the antitrust claims on the ground the
allegations in the operative complaint, the SAC did not plausibly
allege an agreement to fix wages.  The district court dismissed the
RICO claims because the SAC failed to allege the existence of
enterprises distinct from the persons alleged to have engaged in
those enterprises.  Thereafter, the district court denied the
Shepherds' request to file a third amended complaint ("TAC").  It
concluded the majority of the proposed amendments were futile.
Alternatively, the district court concluded the proposed amendments
were dilatory and allowing amendment would unduly prejudice the
Defendants.

The Shepherds appeal, asserting the SAC states valid Sherman Act
and RICO claims and insisting the district court abused its
discretion in denying their motion to file the TAC.

Judge Murphy finds that the SAC does not allege that the Rancher
Defendants (or any other members of WRA or MPAS) explicitly agreed
to any limitation on their behavior with regard to wages paid to
either foreign or domestic shepherds.  Because the SAC did not
allege direct evidence as to any of the three supposed
conspiracies, the district court correctly applied Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly in evaluating whether the SAC plausibly alleged an
antitrust agreement.

If the Shepherds' allegations suffice to allege a plausible Section
1 agreement, all members of an association could be deemed to have
entered into an antitrust conspiracy simply because they joined the
association, participated in its governance, and agreed to abide by
its rules.  This would be true even, as is the present case, absent
the existence of an anticompetitive rule or practice binding on all
association members.  This is simply not the law.  The district
court correctly determined the exceedingly limited factual
allegations in the SAC did not plausibly state the existence of a
conspiracy to fix wages.

Moreover, in reaching this conclusion, the district court correctly
concluded the H-2A regulations play an important role.  The
regulatory overlay is a critical backdrop that provides relevant
economic context to the Association Defendants' and Rancher
Defendants' alleged conduct.  As Twombly directs, in analyzing
whether allegations in a complaint state a plausible antitrust
agreement, courts must consider the larger context.  That the
regulatory scheme permits, and in places requires, the very actions
the Shepherds contend support the inference of a conspiracy is an
important contextual consideration.  Given these regulations, the
mere process of utilizing joint applications and acting as joint
employer does not give rise to a plausible inference of an improper
agreement.

AS for the RICO claims, the Judge holds that the district court
erred in dismissing the RICO claim against Richins.  Pursuant to
Brannon v. Boatmen's First Nat'l Bank of Okla. and Cedric Kushner
Promotions, Ltd. v. King, Richins is legally distinct from the
association-in-fact composed of himself and WRA.  Brannon and
Cedric Kushner make clear that the RICO distinctness requirement is
satisfied when a corporate officer, such as Richins in his role as
executive director, board member, and president of WRA, is sued as
the RICO Defendant person and the alleged RICO enterprise is the
corporation or association (i.e., WRA).  Thus, the district court
erred in determining, as a matter of law, that Richins was not
distinct from WRA.  In all other respects, the district court
properly dismissed the RICO and antitrust claims set out in the
SAC.  

The Shepherds appeal from the district court's denial of their
motion to file the TAC, a complaint designed to rectify the
inadequacies identified in the SAC.  According to the Shepherds,
the district court abused its discretion in concluding the filing
of the TAC should not be allowed because of undue delay.  They
assert the delay was not "undue" or "unexplained," because the
proposed amendments were based largely on reactions to
late-breaking arguments of the Defendants and new evidence.  The
Shepherds further assert there was no prejudice to Defendants
because little discovery has been taken and continued litigation
cannot constitute prejudice.

The Judge holds that the  district court's denial of the motion to
file the TAC was a reasonable and permissible choice under the
circumstances of the case.  The district court acted well within
the bounds of its discretion in denying the Shepherds' motion to
file a TAC.  Thus, that decision does not amount to an abuse of
discretion.

Based on the reasons provided, Judge Murphy reversed the district
court's dismissal of the Shepherds' RICO claim against Richins, and
remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings.
In all other respects, the Judge affirmed the orders of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xRkayN from Leagle.com.

David H. Seligman -- info@towardsjustice.org -- (Alexander N. Hood,
with him on the briefs), Towards Justice, Denver, Colorado for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

James Larry Stine, Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine,
P.C., Atlanta Georgia, and Amber J. Munck -- muncka@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, Denver, Colorado (Elizabeth K. Dorminey --
ekd@wimlaw.com -- Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine,
P.C., Atlanta, Georgia, and Naomi G. Beer, and Harriet McConnell,
Greenberg Traurig, Denver, Colorado, with them on the brief), for
Defendants-Appellees Western Range Association and Mountain Plains
Agricultural Service.

Kenneth F. Rossman IV -- krossman@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Denver, Colorado, (Stacy Kourlis Guillon, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Denver, Colorado; Bradford J. Axel, Stokes
Lawrence, P.S., Seattle, Washington; and J. Rod Betts, Paul,
Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP, San Diego, California, with him
on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees Nottingham Land and
Livestock, LLLP, Two Bar Sheep Corporation, LLC, Cunningham Sheep
Company, and Martin Auza Sheep Company.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Shanklin
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' reply papers related to Wilhelmina International,
Inc.'s motions for summary judgment in the Shanklin Litigation are
due September 12, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.  The Company's reply on its summary
judgment motions is due October 12, 2019.

On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares
and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New
York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel
who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought
by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation").  The claims in the
Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and
unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the
Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on
behalf of models and the use of model images.  Other parties named
as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model
management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers.

On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.  On August 11, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of
the model management defendants.

Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.

Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.  The
Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were
at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors,
of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated
the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other
things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages
and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate
payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full
explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were
computed.  The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the
action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief
as the court deems proper.

On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims.  The Court entered a decision granting
in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May
26, 2017.  The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor
Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of
action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of
contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New
York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time
frame.

The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018.  On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely
filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) filed motion for class certification on their contract
claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims.  On July 12,
2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class
certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against
Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and a motion for summary
judgment against Raske.  The Plaintiffs' reply papers are due
September 12, 2019 and Wilhelmina's reply on its summary judgment
motions is due October 12, 2019.

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation
are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the
actions.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid Pending vs Little
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' reply papers related to Wilhelmina International,
Inc.'s cross-motion for summary judgment against Roberta Little are
due September 12, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in
New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.  The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially
the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on
August 16, 2017.

Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018.  Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain
in the case.

Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the
sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation.  On July
12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against
Little.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed motion for class certification
on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law
Claims.  On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the
motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment against Little.  The Plaintiffs' reply papers are
due September 12, 2019 and Wilhelmina's reply on its summary
judgment motions is due October 12, 2019.        

The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley Litigation
are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the
actions.

Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


YELP INC: Securities Class Action Still Ongoing in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. continues to face a class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and its
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations on February 9,
2017.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in
part and denied in part on November 27, 2018.  The case remains
pending.

Yelp said, "Due to the preliminary nature of this lawsuit, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the probability of
incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from
the lawsuit."

Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.



YONKERS BREWING: Website not Accessible to Blind, Murphy Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. YONKERS BREWING COMPANY LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07747 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019),
alleges that Yonkers Brewing failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Ther Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby
and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

Because Defendant's website, https://www.yonkersbrewing.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit
says.

Yonkers Brewing produces beer for customers in the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Zare Khorozian, Esq.
          ZARE KHOROZIAN LAW LLC
          1047 Anderson Avenue
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: 201.957.7269
          Facsimile: 201.224.9841
          E-mail: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, New York 10003
          Telephone: 212.228.9795
          Facsimile: 212.982.6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  DanaLGottlieb@aol.com

YRC WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Lewis Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that the defendants in the lawsuit captioned
Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc. have sought the Court's order
to dismiss the case.

In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers.  The complaint was filed on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 10, 2014 and December 14,
2018.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements relating to its freight
billing practices as alleged in the Complaint in Intervention
("Complaint") of the United States on behalf of the U.S. Department
of Defense filed December 2018 against the Company in the U.S.
District in the Western District of New York captioned United
States ex rel. James Hannum v. YRC Freight, Inc.; Roadway Express,
Inc.; and Yellow Transportation, Inc., Civil Action No.
08-0811(A).

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.  The co-lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019, and the
defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019.

The Company said, "Management believes the Company has meritorious
defenses and intends to vigorously defend this action.  We are
unable to estimate the possible loss, or range of possible loss,
associated with these claims at this time."

YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of
transportation services primarily in North America. The company
operates in two segments, YRC Freight and Regional Transportation.
The company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and
changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. YRC
Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland
Park, Kansas.


ZION OIL: Bid to Dismiss Texas Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties to a
securities class action lawsuit are awaiting the decision of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on a motion
to dismiss.

Following the commencement of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) investigation, on August 9, 2018, a putative class
action (the "class action") Complaint was filed against Zion,
Victor G. Carrillo, the Company's Chief Executive Officer at such
time, and Michael B. Croswell Jr., the Company's Chief Financial
Officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.

On November 16, 2018, the Court entered an Order in the class
action appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel and on
January 22, 2019, an Amended Complaint was filed. On February 1,
2019, a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint was filed.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against all defendants and
alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section
15 of the Securities Act against the individual defendants. The
alleged class period is from February 13, 2018 through November 20,
2018.

On March 13, 2019, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected
Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of Zion, Victor Carrillo and
Michael B. Croswell, Jr., pleading numerous grounds in support of
their Motion to Dismiss. On April 29, 2019 Plaintiffs filed a
Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and on May 29, 2019
Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs' Response.

Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration company
in Israel. It holds a petroleum exploration license onshore Israel,
the Megiddo-Jezreel License that covers an area of approximately
99,000 acres. The company was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $27MM Aearo-Related Costs at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals
of US$27 million as of June 30, 2019, for product liabilities and
defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos
and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
purchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo").  Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of June 30, 2019, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp.  and Cabot Corporation
("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants,
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, coal
mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products
manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

"As of June 30, 2019, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
had accruals of US$27 million for product liabilities and defense
costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-related claims.  This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an estimation period
for future claims that may be filed against Aearo approaching the
year 2050.  Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for
settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the
"Payor Group").  Liability is allocated among the parties based on
the number of years each company sold respiratory products under
the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of
American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of
the individual plaintiff.  Aearo's share of the contingent
liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between
Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995.  This agreement provides that, so
long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot
will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo
against, any product liability claims involving exposure to
asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to
July 11, 1995.  Because of the difficulty in determining how long a
particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being
sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising
out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to
asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997.  With
these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited
to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997.  To date, Aearo has elected to pay the
quarterly fee.  Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional
claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its
agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its
participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to
meet its obligations in these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5Hm24F


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $935MM for Respirator Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$935 million as of June 30, 2019,
for liabilities associated with respirator mask and asbestos cases
(excluding those related to Aearo Technologies), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

3M Company states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive
legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities.  The
Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including
without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against
the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and
(iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").  As part of its
comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the
Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The third
party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and
resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the
Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the
nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and
resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and
appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these
claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and
insurers.

"As a result of the settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust
lawsuits, the Company's assessment of other current and expected
coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current
and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West
Virginia), its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
and the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious
injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black
lung disease, the Company increased its accruals in the first six
months of 2019 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$329
million, of which US$313 million pre-tax (or US$238 million after
tax (US$0.40 per diluted share)) was accrued in the first quarter
of 2019.  In the first six months of 2019, the Company made
payments for legal fees and settlements of US$67 million related to
the respirator mask/asbestos litigation.

"As of June 30, 2019, the Company had an accrual for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$935
million, up US$262 million from the accrual at December 31, 2018.
This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of probable
loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may
be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050.  The
Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of
amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company
has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or
the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of June 30, 2019, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company continues to seek coverage under the
policies of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those
claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5Hm24F


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,660 Claimants at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is still a defendant in numerous lawsuits in various
courts that purport to represent approximately 1,660 individual
claimants as of June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.  A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003.  The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past.  Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past.  Over the past twenty years, the Company
has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a jury
(including lawsuits in 2018).  In 2018, 3M received a jury verdict
in its favor in two lawsuits -- one in California state court in
February and the other in Massachusetts state court in December --
both involving allegations that 3M respirators were defective and
failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos fibers.  In April
2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710 respirators
failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust and awarded
compensatory damages of approximately US$2 million and punitive
damages totaling US$63 million.  In August 2018, the trial court
entered judgment and the Company has appealed.  During March and
April 2019, the Company agreed in principle to settle a substantial
majority of the coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West
Virginia for US$340 million, including the US$65 million jury
verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case currently on appeal.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5Hm24F


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $576MM Reserve at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. has asbestos litigation reserve of
US$576 million as of June 30, 2019, compared to US$612 million at
September 30, 2018, according to the Company's Earnings News
Release dated July 30, 2019.

At June 30, 2019, the Company also recorded asbestos insurance
receivable of US$161 million compared to US$179 million at
September 30, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Company's Earnings News Release dated July
30, 2019 is available at https://is.gd/uokKtL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Tosses Claims Against Union Carbide
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reported that the Delaware
Superior Court has thrown out a widow's claims that Union Carbide
Corp. was liable for her husband's asbestos-related illness and
death.

Superior Court Judge Jeffrey J. Clark granted Union Carbide's
request for summary judgment on plaintiff Marianne Robinson's
defective-design strict liability and failure to warn claims,
concluding that Robinson failed to present issues of material
fact.

Robinson's husband was exposed to the asbestos product Calidria,
sold in bulk by Union Carbide to Georgia-Pacific, which then put it
into compounds sold to consumers, according to Clark's opinion.

Clark said the issue began with whether Union Carbide had a duty to
warn Robinson's husband about the dangers of asbestos. In this
case, Ohio law applied and Union Carbide was able to utilize the
bulk supplier defense. The defense allows the supplier to shift the
duty to warn to the intermediary that sells to the end-user.

"At the outset, Ms. Robinson argues that the traditional
requirements for the defense apply. Namely, she argues UCC would
have been relieved of its duty to warn Mr. Robinson only if
Georgia-Pacific (1) was a sophisticated bulk purchaser, (2) if UCC
gave Georgia-Pacific an adequate warning, and (3) UCC reasonably
relied upon Georgia-Pacific to warn its customers," Clark said in
an Aug. 15 opinion. "UCC counters that while there is no issue of
material fact regarding the sufficiency of its warnings to
Georgia-Pacific, Ohio law requires only two things. Namely, UCC
argues that Georgia-Pacific must have only been adequately informed
about the dangers of bulk asbestos and must have had the ability to
warn the ultimate consumer."

Clark said that Georgia-Pacific was indeed a sophisticated bulk
purchaser and that the facts were stacked against Robinson.

"When considering the evidence of record with the appropriate
deference, no reasonable jury could find for Ms. Robinson on this
issue," Clark said. "Namely, no jury could reasonably find other
than that Georgia-Pacific was (1) fully knowledgeable about the
dangers of asbestos and was thus sophisticated, (2) UCC gave
Georgia-Pacific adequate warnings regarding the dangers of
Calidria, and (3) UCC reasonably relied upon Georgia-Pacific to
warn Mr. Robinson."

As for Robinson's remaining claims, Clark said that while Calidria
may be defective in design or formulation, Robinson failed to prove
that it was the proximate cause of her husband's mesothelioma.

"Here, the court recognizes the appropriate deference due to Ms.
Robinson regarding the issue of proximate cause. Nevertheless, she
has not identified sufficient evidence of record that would justify
any reasonable jury in finding for her on the issue of product
identification," Clark said.

Patrick J. Smith of Balick & Balick in Wilmington represents
Robinson and did not respond to a request for comment.

Joseph S. Naylor of Swartz Campbell represents Union Carbide and
did not respond to a request for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Fines Asbestos Firm for GM Plant Demolition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Baker, writing for Delaware News Journal, reported that the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
has fined the company removing asbestos from the former General
Motors plant near Newport, saying it was unsafely disposing of the
cancer-causing material.

In a violation notice, Delaware's chief environmental regulator,
Shawn Garvin, stated the Pennsylvania company was removing the
asbestos in a way that caused "large amounts of particulates" to
waft into the air.

What resulted was a visible residue of asbestos along surfaces,
Garvin said in the notice, which marked the end of a department
investigation.

Asbestos, a naturally occurring material, can cause lung cancer
years or even decades after breathing it in.  

The findings prompted DNREC to fine the asbestos company,
EcoServices, LLC, and its foreman $20,000 each for violating
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.

They were fined an additional $13,000 for the cost of the DNREC
investigation. They have 30 days to appeal.

DNREC found that the foreman, Derick Maxwell, had "refused to take
any action" when his employees alerted him to problems at the site.


Maxwell could not be reached for comment.

An attorney for EcoServices, a licensed environmental contractor
based in Exton, Pennsylvania, did not reply to an email requesting
comment.

In a statement, Newport developer Harvey Hanna and Associates --
which owns the plant and hired EcoServices -- said, "We have only
recently learned of the issue between DNREC and EcoServices, and
out of respect for the regulatory process, it would be
inappropriate for us to comment further at this time."

A spokesman for Harvey Hanna said the asbestos abatement has been
completed.

Once the worksite for thousands of people employed in Delaware's
auto industry, Harvey Hanna bought the former GM property on
Boxwood Road in 2017.

The company said it will build a logistics center that could employ
2,000 people.

The DNREC sanction appears to vindicate members of the Delaware
AFL-CIO who four months ago protested conditions of the non-union
worksite.

It was a demonstration that brought inflatable rats and even police
to picket lines, sparking formal claims of worker intimidation.

Delaware AFL-CIO President James Maravelias said the DNREC fine
"sends a message" to out-of-state contractors.   

"Maybe it will wake some people up to start using local people and
local contractors to do their work -- union or non-union," he said.


During their protest, union members had been circulating a video of
the abatement, which they said showed dangerous asbestos "snow"
wafting over the site. A union member, who had gone undercover at
the worksite pretending to be a non-union laborer, recorded the
footage in February.

In April, a community meeting two miles from the plant turned
raucous when neighbors viewed the video. With DNREC officials in
attendance, many called for the demolition to be stopped
immediately.  

"Why can't it be shut down?" asked one man "Why do we keep talking
about it, and talking about it."

In a response, Harvey Hanna officials at the time said that air
quality at the site never surpassed unsafe levels based on results
from monitoring devices.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that it is still subject to claims from
historic products which may have contained asbestos.

The Company states, "Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims,
administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate
to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement,
personal injuries, antitrust matters, and employment-related
matters.  Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos.  Insurance may cover
some of the costs associated with these claims and proceedings.
Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a
material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/lAzC78


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talc Educator Never Saw Asbestos Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a former Johnson & Johnson consumer educator
took the word of company lawyers and researchers that its talcum
powder was free of cancer-causing asbestos and relayed the same to
customers, but she never examiner any of the data that purportedly
backed that information, a New Jersey jury heard.

Launching the sixth week of testimony in a case brought by four
people claiming J&J baby powder caused their mesothelioma, Nancy
Musco said in video-recorded testimony that she relied on
information relayed to her by colleagues that the talcum powder
products never contained asbestos and "never will."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kodak Looks to Ch. 11 to Guard vs Asbestos Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reported that Eastman Kodak Co. asked a New York
bankruptcy court to reopen its 2012 Chapter 11 case and enforce its
discharge from asbestos injury lawsuits.

The Travelers Indemnity Co. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.
want Eastman Kodak to indemnify the insurer in asbestos injury
lawsuits recently brought against an old, dissolved Kodak
subsidiary called Ridge Construction Corp, according to Kodak's
Aug. 14 court filings.

Traveler's indemnity demand is based on a settlement agreement with
Kodak more than 10 years before the film company filed bankruptcy,
Kodak said. But that agreement was "rejected" and effectively
eliminated by Kodak's reorganization plan approved by the
bankruptcy court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,279 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. remains a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately
3,279 plaintiffs as of June 30, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,047
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts,
7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved
after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 894 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/KuiSrk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Nets $98MM in Injury Coverage Battle
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Montana judge ruled that National Indemnity
Co. must pay the state nearly $98 million to cover its costs to
defend and settle asbestos-related injury claims stemming from a
mining operation that ran from the 1950s through the 1980s.

Since 2000, the state of Montana has faced hundreds of lawsuits
alleging injury after the state failed to warn of asbestos dust
conditions at vermiculite mining and milling operations in and
around Libby, Montana, run by W.R. Grace & Co. -- previously
operated by Universal Zonolite & Insulation Co., according to court
documents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Zurn Had 6,000 Pending Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 6,000 asbestos related lawsuits
representing approximately 12,000 claims filed against Rexnord
Corporation's Zurn subsidiary as of June 30, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "As of June 30, 2019, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos
related lawsuits representing approximately 12,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.
These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.

"As of June 30, 2019, the Company estimates the potential liability
for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims expected to
be filed in the next ten years to be approximately US$40.0 million,
of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately
US$30.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the
balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.
The US$40.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and
represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future
claims.  There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating
the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and
the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives.
As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate
described herein and could be substantial.  The liability for the
asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other liabilities within the
condensed consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2019, is in excess of
the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all
current claims are covered by insurance.

"As of June 30, 2019, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of US$40.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits.  Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HfLfz3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rowlands Sue Centex in La. Court
-------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Record reported that the following cases categorized
as "asbestos" cases were on the docket in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Aug. 9:

   * Christopher Rowland; Matthew Rowland; Susan Rowland v. Centex
Corporation; Eagle, Inc.; Lake Forest, LLC, 2:19-cv-12127

Brian C. Bossier; Christopher Thomas Grace , III; Edwin A.
Ellinghausen , III; Erin Helen Boyd; Jasmine Najee Brown; Laura M.
Gillen; Patrick Kevin Shockey; Lea Ann Smith (defendant's
attorneys)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: T. Dexheimer Files Asbestos Exposure Suit in Del.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas Dexheimer, a resident of Jersey City, New Jersey,
filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
alleging that he experienced occupational and bystander exposure to
asbestos while he worked as an auto mechanic helper in Jersey City,
New Jersey at Jersey City Public Works Automotive Department from
1971 to 2011 and as a result he developed lung cancer.

The case is THOMAS DEXHEIMER, PLAINTIFF, v. ARVINMERITOR, INC.,
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE FORMER AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS SEGMENT OF
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP.; BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC, LLC. AS
SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO BORG-WARNER CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY;
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., F/K/A ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., F/K/A THE
BENDIX CORPORATION; KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; MACK TRUCKS, INC.;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO ABEX CORPORATION DEFENDANTS, Case No. N19C-05-140 ASB.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK LLC
     919 North Market Street, Suite 1801
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 330-8025
     Email: RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Couple Sues CBS et al. over Lung Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs, Jerry B. French and Marsha A. French, residents of
Huntington, Tennessee, filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware alleging that Mr. French was wrongly exposed
to asbestos fibers emanating from various sources which were mixed,
mined, manufactured, distributed, sold, removed, installed, and/or
used by the Defendants.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Mr. French suffers
from an asbestos-related disease(s) including, but not limited to,
Lung Cancer.  The Plaintiff first became aware that he suffered
from said disease(s) on or about September of 2018, and,
subsequently thereto, became aware that the same was wrongfully
caused.

Mr. French's former employers include, but are not limited to, the
following:

   a. Auto Shop - located in Lexington, KY from approximately 1952
to 1960 as an Assistant Mechanic;

   b. Hemby Construction - located in Lexington, KY from
approximately 1958 to 1972 as a Laborer and Painter;

   c. Bruckmann Construction - located in Jackson, TN from
approximately early the 1960's to the mid 1970's as a Laborer and
Painter;

   d. Daniel Construction - located in Jackson, TN from
approximately the mid 1970's to the mid 1970's as a Laborer and
Painter; and

   e. Barger Construction - located in Huntingdon, TN from
approximately late 1970's and early 1980's as a Laborer and
Painter.

The case is JERRY B. FRENCH and MARSHA A. FRENCH, his wife,
Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a
VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a
Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
as successor in interest to THE BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY; CRANE CO.;
DAP PRODUCTS, INC.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER LLC; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; HENRY COMPANY, individually, and as successor in
interest to MONSEY PRODUCTS COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
f/k/a ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as successor in interest to THE BENDIX
CORPORATION; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY; NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, Individually and as
successor in interest to ATLANTIC ASBESTOS CORP.; RHEEM
MANUFACTURING COMPANY; THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; THE PROCTER &
GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY; THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Individually
and as Subsidiary of PepsiCo.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; WESTERN
AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. N19C-05-127 ASB.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Adam Balick, Esq.
     Patrick J. Smith, Esq.
     BALICK & BALICK, LLC
     711 North King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 658-4265
     Email: abalick@balick.com

        -- and --

     Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
     Ipek K. Medford, Esq.
     Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
     Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
     DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Cool Spring Meeting House
     1106 West Tenth Street
     Wilmington, DE 19806
     Tel: (302) 652-2050
     Email: IMedford@BDaltonlaw.com

OF COUNSEL:

     WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 558-5500


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tomball Couple Seeks $1-Mil.+ from 3M, Others
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for SE Texas Record, reported that a Tomball
couple is suing 3M and a number of other companies over allegations
the husband was injured due to exposure to asbestos-containing
products.

Robert Higginbotham and Linda Higginbotham filed a complaint in the
Harris County District Court against 3M Co., Brenntag North America
Inc., Brenntag Specialties Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and others
alleging negligence and other counts.

Robert Higginbotham alleges he was exposed to asbestos through his
late father's clothing, through the use of Old Spice and other
talcum powders and through his employment at Tomball School
District.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to warn of the
dangers of asbestos exposure, failed to place warnings on their
products' packaging, and failed to properly manufacturer and design
the products for safe use.

The plaintiffs are seeking trial by jury, monetary relief of more
than $1 million, interest, relief deemed fit. They are represented
by Darren P. McDowell of Simon Greenstone Panatier PC in Dallas.

Harris County District Court case number 2019-3941


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 179 PI Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. still defends itself against
approximately 179 asbestos-related lawsuits as of June 30, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers,
and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

"As of June 30, 2019, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 179 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs.  For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all
or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the
basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.
The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989.

"In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a
settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with
funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place
settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both
the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar
nature.

"While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of
these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results
of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/B1b5pC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana.
The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general
maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special
master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us,
cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At June 30, 2019, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest.  We intend to
defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no
assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have maintained broad
liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance
will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.
Based on our evaluation of the exposure related to the complaints,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims
to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated
statement of financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/B1b5pC



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***